Hi there,
Bumping this thread for visibility.
Cheers,
Jorge
On Fri, 2 Sep 2022, 18:01 Chris Egerton, wrote:
> Hi Jorge,
>
> One tiny nit, but LGTM otherwise:
>
> The KIP mentions backslashes as "(/)"; shouldn't this be "(\)"?
>
> I'll cast a +1 on the vote thread anyways; I'm sure this won't b
Hi Jorge,
One tiny nit, but LGTM otherwise:
The KIP mentions backslashes as "(/)"; shouldn't this be "(\)"?
I'll cast a +1 on the vote thread anyways; I'm sure this won't block us.
Cheers, and thanks for all your hard work on this!
Chris
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 1:33 PM Jorge Esteban Quilcate O
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your feedback!
1. Yes, it will be context-dependent. I have added rules and scenarios to
the nested notation to cover the happy path and edge cases. In short,
backticks will be not be considered as part of the field name when they are
wrapping a field name: first backtick at
Hi Robert and Jorge,
I think the backtick/backslash proposal works, but I'm a little unclear on
some of the details:
1. Are backticks only given special treatment when they immediately follow
a non-escaped dot? E.g., "foo.b`ar.ba`z" would refer to "foo" -> "b`ar" ->
"ba`z" instead of "foo" -> "ba
