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

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