Re: User defined Functions in ADQL

Wil

Thanks.

> I have started a 0.6 draft with this change in :)

I didn't expect to force a revision just for an 's'. :-)

> Martin expressed well our current thinking of ADQL i.e. it should be
> complete and simple. If ADQL is to be a parse tree the XSD should
> contain all keywords/functions. If we allowed user defined functions it
> would certainly allow flexibility but also introduce uncertainty. It is
> a debate we have had and I think and interesting topic for discussion at
> Strasbourg.

Agree with need for simplicity. Not sure how to reconcile that with need for UDFs in practice. We can indeed debate at Strasbourg. Cone search is the most vital, which is (if not very neatly) provided already.

-- 
Clive Page
Dept of Physics & Astronomy,
University of Leicester,    Tel +44 116 252 3551
Leicester, LE1 7RH,  U.K.   Fax +44 116 252 3311