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

Re: Variable and option binding proposal

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:57:02 +0000
Message-ID: <47EBD1DE.10609@jenitennison.com>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
CC: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:
> / 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 :-)

I was arguing that we shouldn't specify that all the variable bindings 
must come at the beginning if it doesn't matter when or if their values 
are actually computed. Let people put them where it makes sense to them.

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2008 16:57:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 27 March 2008 16:57:42 GMT