W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Variable and option binding proposal

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:24:08 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2tzisuod3.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
[...]
|> The document order of steps is irrelevant in practice. That means we'd
|> rules about what happens to variables that occur between steps when
|> the steps are reordered. I don't think it'd be easy to understand
|> those rules.
|
| Couldn't you say that the bindings visible to any steps within a given
| subpipeline are all the variables that are bound within that
| subpipeline, and leave it for the implementation to decide whether it
| evaluates all the variables before running the steps, or evaluates
| them on demand, or what?
|
| If the order doesn't matter (to the implementation) then we ought to
| let people put them in whatever order feels right to them (just as we
| have for steps).

Yes, I think so. Having concluded that all the variable bindings will
come at the beginning, it's not important when or if their values
are actually computed (unless they're actually referenced at run time,
of course :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | All along the untrodden paths of the
http://nwalsh.com/            | future, I can see the footprints of an
                              | unseen hand.--Sir Boyle Roche

Received on Thursday, 27 March 2008 16:24:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 March 2008 16:24:54 GMT