Re: <input> for <pipeline> (action A-87-01)

/ Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> was heard to say:
| On Nov 12, 2007 8:36 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
|> In 5.1, add:
|>
|>   An input declaration may include a default binding. If no binding is
|>   provided for an input port which has a default binding, then the
|>   input is treated as if the default binding appeared.
|>
|>   A default binding does not satisfy the requirement that a primary
|>   input port is automatically connected by the processor, nor is it
|>   used when no default readable port is defined. Consequently, it is
|>   pointless to provide a default binding for any primary input port
|>   except on a p:pipeline that is invoked directly by the processor.
|>
|>   It is a static error for a p:pipe to appear in a default binding.
|>
|> [...]
|>
|> 2. A p:declare-step or a p:pipeline in a library can define defaults
|> for all of its inputs, be they primary or not, but defining a default
|> for a primary input is a no-op. It's never used since the the step,
|> when it's called, will always bind the primary input port to the
|> default readable port (or cause a static error).
|
| Editorial note: your explanation (after "2." above) is much clearer to
| me than the second paragraph above you suggest to add to the
| specification. Could somehow the text you will be inserting in the
| specification contain some of this wording, to help people like me ;).

If we agree on the technical change, I'm happy to wordsmith until it's
clear :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The truest wild beasts live in the most
http://nwalsh.com/            | populous places.-- Gracián