Re: TMQL: Direct (super|sub)types?

Hi Robert,

On 5 Mar 2011, at 10:33 AM, Robert Barta wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 09:31:23AM +0000, Andrew S. Townley wrote:
> 
>> I'm not saying that TMQL shouldn't be based on a formal model with
>> consistent semantics, but I think I'm a bit confused from the use
>> case as to whether it's supposed to be a scripting language on its
>> own (supported by CTM and TMCL) or whether it is expected to be
>> mixed in or used from host languages.
> 
> _That_ is actually a very good question (although I do not see the
> connection to the above ;-)


I guess because I'm seeing it both as an implementor (something I'm going to have to parse and translate into existing query APIs) and more along the lines of SQL where it would be limited to DDL and DML, but any serious logic constructions would be either defined by some other beast, e.g. PL/SQL or handled by the host language.

This isn't so say that I wouldn't see the value of "embedded" TMQL inside an implementation for the same reasons that stored procedures make sense--closer to the data, much more efficient.  However, the main reason for my apparent confusion is the apparent 3-way overloading of isa (at least to my reading).

Gotta dash into a meeting, but I'll check back after while.

Cheers,

ast
--
Andrew S. Townley <[email protected]>
http://atownley.org