W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Should defaulted ports be named?

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 00:25:31 +0100
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0711071525w1c339047x868f3d0edf47bde8@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Hum...not sure it falls in the same category

Can you give an example where referencing them could lead to confusion ?

Mohamed

On Nov 7, 2007 4:56 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> was heard to say:
> | The defaulted output port of a subpipeline is given the name "result".
> | And the defaulted input and output ports of a pipeline (if we keep them)
> | are given the names "source" and "result".
> |
> | Since the purpose of these is to simplify the very basic case of
> | straight-line pipelines, wouldn't it be better for them to have
> | unusable names such as "!result"?
>
> Yes, I think so. Just as we gave anonymous steps unreferenceable names.
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A man must have grown old and lived
> http://nwalsh.com/            | long in order to see how short life
>                               | is.-- Schopenhauer
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 23:25:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT