Hi Carsten, > > However, a new syntax is needed. I'd guess something at the start > > that is currently invalid would indicate a whole new style of > > expression is present, one with typical precedence, and more string > > matching possibilities. > > But why not as a first step keep the old syntax and make & a real AND > and : ar real OR ... > (Also allowing "!=" and "!" inside expressions.) That would make > everything possible. Better syntax and precedence is then just " nice > to have" for the second improvement step.
If study shows that old valid expressions can't be interpreted differently under the new parsing rules, then fine. But I'd assume they could be. Cheers, Ralph.
