Re: Semantics of p:wrap

"Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes:
> Making p:wrap non-recursive would make the step behave differently than
> the other steps. Also, because of symmetry (p:unwrap is recursive), I am
> now also inclined to say that p:wrap should be recursive, too.

Indeed. I wasn't trying to propose a change, I was just confused about
what the spec actually said. I agree that recursive behavior *is* what
was intended and I'll clarify the spec along those lines. And fix my
implementation :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The important thing is not what the
http://nwalsh.com/            | author, or any artist, had in mind to
                              | begin with but at what point he decided
                              | to stop.--D. W. Harding