[sc34wg3] TMQL - Short vs. formal syntax

Lars Heuer heuer at semagia.com
Fri Sep 4 06:34:16 EDT 2009

Hi Inge,

> Oh, and one more thing, I believe that a programming language
> should use a word when one special character is not enough to
> describe an operator or whatever, some examples from the Path expressions:

> "<<" could be "LEFT", 
">>>" "RIGHT"

Please not. :)

> , "<~~" "REIFIED LEFT"
> , and "~~>" "REIFIED RIGHT"

> etc.

No! :)

We shouldn't try to reinvent Logo or Basic.

I think we don't want too much keywords in TMQL. The good thing in
TMQL as it is, is that it has *no reserved* keywords, that means that
you can use i.e. "select" or "for" as topic identifier as long as you
don't use it as start of a query expression. If we introduce more
keywords we have to check if this nice feature still works.

I agree that TMQL should be readable and not too hard to memorise, but
we shouldn't make TMQL too verbose. We already have verbose query

Best regards,

More information about the sc34wg3 mailing list