David E. Wheeler wrote: >> From my experience with working on Set::Relation and the Rosetta DBMS >> (and the now defunct SQL::Routine), if you *really* want to have an >> explicit AST that says exactly what you mean, is expressive enough >> for 99+% of any real-world uses, and is very portable, you >> essentially have to define a whole turing complete language, >> including the basics (which is what I am doing). > I think that's true if you want to write an RDBMS. But we're just > trying to support SELECT statements, here.
We can do both, if you allow a "function call" and "function application" to be the basic operations of your language. Works for lisp. Sam. _______________________________________________ List: http://lists.rawmode.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class Wiki: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/trunk/DBIx-Class/ Searchable Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
