Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Minimal example:
create type FooType as open {
type: string
}
Original comment by zheilb...@gmail.com
on 22 Jul 2013 at 10:08
This has actually been fixed already but the fix doesn't appear to be reflected
in our documentation. There's a new quoting approach to naming fields that
will handle this. HTC hit this almost immediately too, so it was fixed in
response to their need. Till - please comment on the fix and also update the
docs? (The grammar needs to reflect this in the AQL doc, and we might want to
have an example. You also made another adjustment recently related to this, I
think?) Thx!
Original comment by dtab...@gmail.com
on 22 Jul 2013 at 11:53
Yes, this has been fixed. One can use the keywords by quoting them (using
StringLiterals). This is actually already reflected in the grammar, however
1) the type constructor rule in the grammar was broken (fixed now) such that
StringLiterals didn't work and
2) the documentation doesn't reflect this well.
So
create type FooType as open {
"type": string
}
should work and I'll try to find a good spot int he docs to improve them.
Original comment by westm...@gmail.com
on 23 Jul 2013 at 6:23
documentation update is in
https://code.google.com/p/asterixdb/source/detail?r=42716ea22096cf088050b295e442
e961743e40fe&name=documentation
Original comment by westm...@gmail.com
on 23 Jul 2013 at 9:48
Original comment by westm...@gmail.com
on 23 Jul 2013 at 9:49
Great, thanks!
Original comment by zheilb...@gmail.com
on 23 Jul 2013 at 9:50
Actually, I just hit a new bug. The parser correctly parses the "type"
fieldname, but returns the quoted fieldname due to a bug in jj file.
The bug is on line 918: the Identifier() call returns the correct fieldname,
but then is over written by token.image--probably just a piece of legacy code
that didn't get removed.
The fix is simply to remove the token line.
Original comment by zheilb...@gmail.com
on 29 Jul 2013 at 11:32
Turns out I have an obsolete version of the branch and you fixed this a while
back.
:)
Original comment by zheilb...@gmail.com
on 30 Jul 2013 at 11:26
Original comment by zheilb...@gmail.com
on 30 Jul 2013 at 11:26
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
zheilb...@gmail.com
on 22 Jul 2013 at 10:04