Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Amelia A Lewis scripsit: > It follows that the first question to ask is "what is a type?" Very well. A (simple) type is a named set of values. > Therefore, to create a data library definition language > (which is what I think XML Schema part two should have been), one needs to > create a language capable of describing validation algorithms. In principle, it is known that a context-free grammar is strong enough. In practice, a regular grammar is probably strong enough, but may be ugly in particular cases of practical interest: it is painful to write a regex that matches all integers between -200 and 55678. > If in fact language binding is a significant part of how a simple type is > defined, I don't think anybody argues this. Rather, the claim is that language binding is an important *application* of types. -- John Cowan <jcowan@r...> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
