Re: Backward incompatible CQL changes 0.8.0 -> 0.8.1

2011-07-23 Thread paul cannon
I definitely vote for reserving words that are expected to be needed in the future. It seems we have a pretty good chance of predicting most of the syntactical needs for the next couple years (especially with suggestions from common SQL variants), and the (hopefully) rare exceptions could get their

Re: Backward incompatible CQL changes 0.8.0 -> 0.8.1

2011-07-23 Thread Eric Evans
On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 21:29 -0500, paul cannon wrote: > I definitely vote for reserving words that are expected to be needed > in the future. It seems we have a pretty good chance of predicting > most of the syntactical needs for the next couple years (especially > with suggestions from common SQL