Glyn Normington
Glyn Normington
Thanks @cabo for raising this topic! I believe there are four short-term goals: * build a viable Working Group of implementers, users, and other interested parties * maximise and maintain...
Hi @cabo I'm not sure how much we'll be able to cover in the meeting today, so let me dump my current thoughts here and please feel free to update...
Or is it that boolean literals aren't evaluated as boolean expressions?
`@` and `$` paths "on their own" (i.e. not involved in a comparison) in a filter denote an existence test, but I don't think that makes much sense for literals...
It's similar, but that is treating predicates as booleans rather than treating boolean literals as predicates, so we could make a distinction on that basis. It reminds me of certain...
> We would have to make a slightly bigger change to support boolean values as part of the logic, I suggest we address this in a second change. I have...
> I think I need to process a bit more what you initially wrote @glyn. Apologies that I didn't initial react to that, I think I need some quiet moment...
@remorhaz I'd prefer to avoid completely new constructs.
@Cleidiano Yes, that approach works if people think of using `1 != 2` instead of `false`.
I like the idea of scoring against the consensus. In the fulness of time, supposing a standard is defined, perhaps we could also score against the reference implementation.