Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
[ simon responds... ] > >Tree-trickery may not be possible in the context of stream > >based processing. Sometimes "minimizing the decls" isn't > >an achievable goal. You may end up adding a few decls > >in case they're needed later, but it turns out they aren't. > > Sure. What makes the work I'm doing now (which spun off the Regular > Fragmentations project) fun is that I'm mixing trees and streams. Damming > the flow of events and creating structures, then releasing the dam and > letting the structures flow out as events again. Yep, I like that model. So long as nobody's subsidizing any construction on the flood plain ... :) > > > Finally, I don't think variable-scoping is a useful comparison for > > > namespace-scoping in XML documents. > > > >I was going for accuracy in explaining the name binding rules. > >Actually using those names is a different issue. > > I suppose, though I'm not sure quite how you think it adds accuracy. Mostly by correcting some false assumptions I thought I was seeing. > No, I'm suggested that variable scope in programs is much simpler than > namespace usage in documents, especially complex documents using things > like XLink or xsi:type. The scopes inside of programs don't typically > cross-link that way, There seems to be a missing example here. The things to which variable names are bound certainly get arbitrarily complex, but there's no difference in the scopes of the names themselves. > and you'd not normally think of defining variable > scopes at the beginning of the entire program. No more than I think of defining namespace prefixes at the beginning of XML documents, that's for sure! Global variables are classic examples of Things To Avoid, and I can't see any reason to treat xmlns declarations any differently. - Dave
|
