Re: default pipeline input

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> / ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
> | Seems to me we should either say that the first / only p:input in a
> | p:pipeline provides the initial default readable port.
> |
> | If we can't stand that, we should at least allow a 'default' attribute
> | on p:input for this purpose.
>
> Yes.
>
> We don't currently allow 'default' on p:input so I think I'd prefer to
> say that if a pipeline has a single input, that becomes the default
> readable port for the pipeline, otherwise the author has to specify
> the first connection.

I agree with a version of the principle behind this, namely that in
the non-standard case the pipeline author can indicate his/her wishes
by making the first step's input explicit.

But I think on reflection that we should default to the _first_
of the pipeline's declared inputs even if there are more than one.
Reason being that I'm pretty sure most implementations will map stdin
to the first declared input, and it will confuse users if that default
doesn't carry through inside, as it were.

Or does this bring us back to the question of defaulting the primary
input declaration for all containers, which we discussed a while ago
and stalled on. . .?

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF9XQ5kjnJixAXWBoRArjVAJwKkha0CXfImXFBxMPirazisBDLLwCfTxzG
a2XpU/mnjOXDqpevEdl7SoI=
=2lZl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Monday, 12 March 2007 15:39:44 UTC