Talk:Tygron Query Language: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The split is done there because it most cleanly determines what the clauses actually mean and do. Creating a further split for colors or IDs or texts would require adding an additional column to most, of not all of the clauses, the contents of which (the description of how the clause behaves) would be identical. | The split is done there because it most cleanly determines what the clauses actually mean and do. Creating a further split for colors or IDs or texts would require adding an additional column to most, of not all of the clauses, the contents of which (the description of how the clause behaves) would be identical. | ||
--[[User:Rudolf@tygron.com|Rudolf@tygron.com]] ([[User talk:Rudolf@tygron.com|talk]]) 13:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:46, 17 August 2017
Introduction section: Interactions can take place ... or as polygons. is a bit too detailed. Secondly, I personally think it does not describe the complete picture. Item data is vague and the data someone can obtain can be a number, a color, a text, and ID or a polygon. Why separate polygon? --Frank@tygron.com (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2017 (CEST)
I've found, inspecting what queries do, that queries either poll a single item, or compute some polygons. Polling an item data will return indeed an attribute value, a name, a color, an ID, but it will be that single property of a single item. Polling a polygon will compute some intersection of polygons which meet all the criteria provided by the clauses.
The split is done there because it most cleanly determines what the clauses actually mean and do. Creating a further split for colors or IDs or texts would require adding an additional column to most, of not all of the clauses, the contents of which (the description of how the clause behaves) would be identical. --Rudolf@tygron.com (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)