Re: <input> for <pipeline>

/ Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> was heard to say:
|> Section 5.1: "On a p:pipeline, [p:input] is both a declaration and a binding."
|> 
|> What bindings make sense for a pipeline input?  p:pipe doesn't, because
|> there's nothing to connect it to.  The others don't seem of much use:
|> why have the input at all if the user can't connect to it?
|
| After more thought, I am convinced that this just shouldn't be
| allowed.  A p:pipeline is effectively a step declaration along with
| implementation of the step.  It makes no more sense to allow binding
| of inputs on p:pipeline than on p:declare-step.

A binding on an p:input to a p:pipeline is intended to function as a
default binding if the processor doesn't provide one. Doesn't that seem
like useful functionality?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The shoe that fits one person pinches
http://nwalsh.com/            | another; there is no recipe for living
                              | that suits all cases.-- Jung