Re: isnt p:group just p:declare-step

James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes:
> it occurred to me that p:group is almost like p:declare-step and more
> of a syntax shortcut along the lines of p:pipeline ... should we not
> frame it in these terms within the spec ?

It really doesn't feel that way to me. The most significant features of
a p:declare-step to me are the fact that it can declare a type that can 
be called as an atomic step and it can have arbitrar inputs and outputs.

A p:group can't have declared inputs and can't declare a type.

I guess if you think of p:group as a semantic-free wrapper and
p:declare-step as an extension of p:group that adds inputs and
semantics, I can sort of see where you're coming from, but it doesn't
feel natural to me.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | As a general rule, the most successful
http://nwalsh.com/            | man in life is the man who has the best
                              | information.--Benjamin Disraeli