[sc34wg3] Re: [tmql-wg] TMQL Issue: Functions and Predicates as
Lars Marius Garshol
larsga at garshol.priv.no
Thu Mar 15 07:47:56 EDT 2007
* Lars Heuer
> - The TM-ish style adds some syntactic noise to functions / predicates
* Robert Barta
> I definitely buy that argument, that a 'dedicated' function syntax is
> more dedicated than a generic TM syntax for functions. That is true by
> definition, right? :-)
This is the central point in the discussion, Robert. It would be nice
if you could take the counter-arguments seriously.
> The downside of a specialized syntax is that - if we want to see these
> things as topics, and the TM paradigm allows to do so anyway - it
> takes ANOTHER, ADDITIONAL step to explain that. That step would
> fall away
> if we would use a CTM syntax.
Correct. However, so what? How important is this for people, compared
to ease of reading/writing of function/predicate declarations? And
how hard is it to explain, anyway? Let's see if I can do it:
Each function becomes a topic of type tmql:function, with an internal
occurrence tmql:return containing the query expression. The function
name becomes an item identifier for the topic.
Doesn't look like it's much of a problem to explain.
> What about allowing this in CTM:
> person rho
> shoesize 43
> which is saying
> rho isa person
> shoesize: 43
I'll leave it to the other Lars to tell us whether that's workable or
not in CTM.
> In this vein
> tmql:def nr_employees
> tmql:return fn:length ( $o <- employer)
> or dropping the tmql: prefix
> def nr_employees
> return fn:length ( $o <- employer)
> would also be a valid topic syntax.
This looks a lot nicer. What about parameter declaration? What about
More information about the sc34wg3