Re: p:group on p:try a bit verbose

James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes:

> I think the p:group is a bit verbose on p:try, have you considered
> creating an implied p:group if left out ? If a user wants to reuse
> then its up to them to explicitly define (or better yet, reuse the try
> step itself).

You mean

  <p:try>

    <p:identity>...</p:identity>
    <ex:other-step/>

    <p:catch>
    ...
   </p:catch>
  </p:try>

I think that would be confusing. Any output declarations for the p:try
would appear directly on the p:try but they'd have to be the same as
the declarations on the p:catch.

I agree it *could* be done, but I prefer the symmetry of p:group/p:catch.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Kinship is healing; we are physicians
http://nwalsh.com/            | to each other.--Oliver Sacks