Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: tbray@t... <tbray@t...> >Walter is right on both counts, but I'm having trouble getting comfortable >with his PI idea. Not violently against it, but two things make me >uncomfortable. First of all, PIs basically [expletive deleted]. Having said that, if you >gotta use them, this is the kind of thing to use them for. If PIs [expletive deleted], then perhaps they [expletive deleted] in the same way that using #defines in C++ does or the SQLJ preprocessor does: it can be a sign of insufficient analysis in the whole system (perhaps for legitimate reasons: the need may have emerged over time) or because of habit or to clearly demarcate different processing inputs to simplify subsequent phases or because of a deficiency in the underlying language. But this is not to allow that PIs [expletive deleted] in the first place. Actually, to use the C++, I think PIs correspond to pragmas more than anything. Rick Jelliffe xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
