Re: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output

> |> I've already encountered the problem that the harness I wrote for
> |> running test pipelines can't tell what inputs and outputs to expect
> |> for the pipeline by simply inspecting it.

> | Could this be solved by specifying algorithms for pipeline inspections
> | procedures, and publish them as a WG Note, with accompanying
> | pseudo-code/real-code implementation, instead of having to wander
> | through XProc's spec prose?

> Because I feel like pushing back a little bit on our decision to allow
> defaulted pipeline inputs and outputs, I'm going to start by saying
> "no". :-)

Defaulting pipeline inputs and outputs makes a big difference to
the terseness of simple pipelines.  I'd prefer to find a solution
that still allows that terseness.

Henry suggests only allowing such defaulting on top-level pipelines:
if you're writing a library, a bit of verboseness is less annoying.
And the problem I described only arises for pipelines called by name.
There's still a problem that top-level pipelines can call themselves
recursively, but I'd like to try and find a solution before throwing
the baby out with the bathwater.

-- Richard