ease of use - allow p:variable scoped to step

-- 
Another in the 'ease of use' category is the possibility for loosening
the rules of where one can define a p:variable so it easier to scope it
to a step.

Romain Deltour's email [1] motivated the WG to consider how we could achieve
this, taking his p:group as an example for discussion.

<p:group>
  <p:variable name=“count” select=“count(//elem)”>
    <p:pipe step=“earlier-step” port=“result” />
  </p:variable>
  <px:my-step option=“fx:function($count)” />
</p:group>

One approach was the idea of allowing a p:variable to be defined as a
child within the step itself. One could imagine the following
construction; 

<px:my-step>
    <p:variable name="count" select="count(//elem)"/>
    <p:with-option name="option" select="fx:function($count)"/>
</px:my-step>

where the p:variable would automatically connect to the primary input 
port and use that as its context for the select xpath. One would still
be free to use a p:pipe to explicitly choose some other step/port.  

At first glance this seems to neatly address scoping a variable to a step
though admittedly things get a bit slippery after that, for example
using avt in options could look a bit strange.

<px:my-step option="fx:function($count)">
    <p:variable name="count" select="count(//elem)"/>
</px:my-step>

Where it 'looks' like the p:variable is defined after the option is
declared. Maybe thats not such a big deal.

To make things potentially more complicated (and very much shooting from my own
hip) one could envisage some kind of shortcut for defining a p:variable
using attributes on the step itself.

<px:my-step count="count(//elem)" option="fx:function($count)"/>

which would be semantically equiv. to the previous examples.

One would have to use the more explicit p:variable to use a variable
named the same as an option ... which reminds me that the rules for
shadowing and precedence would all need to be worked out (along with
other details).

In summary, I think there is value in this line of enquiry though a bit
unsure how far we go.

thoughts ?

Jim Fuller



[1]- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2014Nov/0021.html

Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 19:10:15 UTC