michaelh added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> bruns wrote in advancedqueryparser.cpp:55
> Why choose a different wording here? Also, the important aspect here is the
> "end", which commits the current token to the list.
Because of opening and closing parentheses, but you're right 'end' is the
important aspect here.
> bruns wrote in advancedqueryparser.cpp:69
> ":=" and "==" are added as is, and the parser interprets both dependent on
> the first character only, i.e. ":" and "=".
> The behaviour for these two combinations is unchanged with this patch.
>
> The lexer should not handle ">" and ">=" differently, both are (valid)
> tokens, and should be returned as such.
>
> Adding e.g. ">=" to the switch statement is not possible, as it works on
> QChar's.
1. I misunderstood your description as ':=' should become '='.
> The lexer should not handle ">" and ">=" differently, both are (valid)
> tokens, and should be returned as such.
That is what I meant. I was confused by `parse()` lexing again when
encountering a '>'.
> Adding e.g. ">=" to the switch statement is not possible, as it works on
> QChar's.
I don't understand. token is QString. Why not instead of `switch
(token.at(0).toLatin1())`
switch (token) {
case '>'`: comparator = Term::Greater; break;
case '>='`: comparator = Term::GreaterEqual; break;
What am I missing?
REPOSITORY
R293 Baloo
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D11888
To: bruns, #baloo, michaelh
Cc: #frameworks, ashaposhnikov, michaelh, astippich, spoorun, ngraham, alexeymin
