Simon Groenewolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi, > > In that case I'll just use a container construction as that is the > cleanest solution for this problem as I see it now. > > ...but if the use of '[' and ']' will give the appropropriate > escaping/changing of fieldnames that means the string is being parsed > anyway isn't it? Why would you want to _not_ have your strings converted > to the correct version? Or is this more about where it should be done > than how/if it should be done?
I think you should have always wnated that. But of course it looks ugly, and often superflouous, therefore people tend to forget/not know. But indeed, parsing of 'constraint' can be completely avoided by using mm:constraint, which I now always prefer. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen Mediacentrum 140 H'sum +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US mihxil' [] ()
