Re: [MonetDB-users] SQL Case Statement
--- On Mon, 4/26/10, Mark Bucciarelli mkbucc@gmail.com wrote:
From: Mark Bucciarelli mkbucc@gmail.com
$ cd src/monet_2009Nov/ $ find . -name "*sql*.y" ./sql/src/server/sql_parser.y $
Well commented YACC source.
I use that when I have a SQL question.
This file is not in any of the tarballs, including Nov2009. Do you have to generate it?
If so, that would be a horrible way to document an external API: 1) Download source code. 2) Run lexical analyzer on source code. 3) Try to understand code comments. 4) Retry your query in the client application.
Is there another document somewhere?
If the comments are very good, maybe that could be quickly refined to become the official documentation.
Thanks, Steve
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Steve Schmechel steveschmechel@yahoo.com wrote:
This file is not in any of the tarballs, including Nov2009. Do you have to generate it?
Yes, from http://monetdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/monetdb/sql/src/server/sql_parser....
If you build a tarball from source, you should have it.
If so, that would be a horrible way to document an external API:
Feel free to write a good man page about how much of the standard is supported. I suspect the project authors would accept such a patch.
m
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Steve Schmechel steveschmechel@yahoo.com wrote:
This file is not in any of the tarballs, including Nov2009. Do you have to generate it?
Yes, from http://monetdb.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/monetdb/sql/src/server/sql_parser....
If you build a tarball from source, you should have it.
Maybe the tarballs only include bison's C output so bison isn't needed to build the tarballs.
However, I'd say the Mx files from version control are the better way to understand the code anyway.
If so, that would be a horrible way to document an external API:
Feel free to write a good man page about how much of the standard is supported. I suspect the project authors would accept such a patch.
How much of the standard is supported is documented on [1], even though it may be too concise if you don't have the standard at hand.
I think the problem is that [2] seems to be slightly outdated. What I'm wondering is that Mx is supposed to be a literate programming tool, allowing to intermingle code and documentation. For other parts of the online documentation, I could find the corresponding source files, but not for [2]. Wouldn't sql_parser.mx be a good place to put it, so it becomes easier to verify if it's current?
Best regards,
Isidor
[1] http://monetdb.cwi.nl/SQL/Documentation/SQL-Features.html [2] http://monetdb.cwi.nl/SQL/Documentation/Queries.html
participants (3)
-
Isidor Zeuner -
Mark Bucciarelli -
Steve Schmechel