Maximilian Roos

Thanks a lot @JettChenT ! And welcome to PRQL!

That would be great @Shuozeli ! I think that sounds very reasonable. I would pass a full `Options` struct to the `compile` function (I think that's what you were suggesting)....

OK, so we'd have a nested `Options` struct. That seems very reasonable too. @Shuozeli does that make sense to you?

Awesome, thanks a lot for adding the comments — you probably saw that I had pushed this as a quick experiment to see if I could continue moving through the...

> Regarding the parsing problem: we can get around that by using patterns: > > ``` > match x [ > 1 -> 'one' > 2..5 -> 'a few', >...

Thanks a lot for #1332. I really like the approach of passing the arg into an implicit function! I'm trying to think if we can keep the syntax of the...

> Maybe we could have the special rule "if the condition is not a function, just use equals comparison". Yes this sounds reasonable! Is there an ambiguity when we want...

> > This is fair, though one thing to note — == is already a unary operator from join [==id]. > > This is actually a conflict between the two...

> There are now also two ways of doing comparison - which is a basic operation and should have only one idiomatic representation. Definitely agree with the principle. - I'm...

One more choice to add to the buffet: do we want this to be `match` or `switch on:`. As part of my campaign to limit keywords, I would vote for...