Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add Reserved Keywords document #45
Add Reserved Keywords document #45
Changes from 1 commit
8002e09
dc71317
4156526
9052915
7a65f62
d795e58
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it could be helpful to make a version of this document for each PartiQL version and implementation listing the reserved keywords (at least the versions with differences).
This can be useful as PartiQL versions change and develop over time. I know we've had similar questions related to our builtin functions (e.g. does partiql-lang-kotlin-x.y.z support this builtin function?).
For reference Microsoft's SQL server has different pages for their different versions:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think putting two additional dimensions (i.e., implementation and version) brings too much overhead unless we have a clear spec. definition for this. I see this document's objective to give a general list of possible keywords and a way to escape them while mentioning that the actual keywords can be different.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps a good compromise is adding PartiQL Spec. Version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that it could add overhead. I still think we should document somewhere though each implementation + implementation version's reserved keywords since they may change and add more keywords over time. Perhaps for each implementation we can have a doc listing the reserved keywords. As we perform new tagged releases on GitHub, we'll then have a link to the reserved keywords of that specific PartiQL version.
E.g. if we had a document called reserved-keywords.adoc in partiql-lang-kotlin, we could reference it like:
And for Rust do something similar:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I generally agree, but I think we need to automate this using the Grammar in the code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps we could add an issue for each implementation to
I think it can still be helpful to have the reserved keywords of each implementation/version visible
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just reflecting the offline response:
I think the following note should be sufficient:
I’m hesitant to go to a lower level b/c that increases the likelihood of exposing stale information if for example, Rust grammar changes.
I still think we need a story around versioned docs for implementations though and I’m going to open an issue for that.
Will update this thread with the issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here is the issue for tracking the version-based documentation:
#46