As I understood the BEP the syntax itself is TBD and totally open at the moment. I would actually prefere if we define the syntax in a subpage and use one of the standards grammars to define it.
On 22 November 2012 16:59, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22/11/12 14:20, Andrej Golcov wrote: > >> On a technical note, is there any reason to specify text~= for a general >>> >> text query? I would have >> >>> thought that we could distinguish free text (as perhaps suggested below >>> >> in the examples below.) >> Agreed and fixed the BEP accordingly. >> > > I was hoping for a bit of a discussion around this point actually. I was > wondering whether I had missed some occasions where there is a requirement > for the ability to avoid ambiguity. In the end there is always quoting and > there should be a bracket notation so there may be no requirement for > text~= at all. > > We will of course also require the ability to escape quoting and other > control characters within any new query language. > > I would if there is much support for defining query languages any of the > suggested search backends. > > Cheers, > Gary >
