- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:32:12 -0400
- To: Norm Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>, XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Yes, this is the point that I was trying make a long while ago. Using $variable and $port in the same sentence gets confusing.
I have recently encountered a pair of Unicode characters that we might consider employing to denote a port: ⸨⸩
⸨ U+2E28 #11816
⸩ U+2E29 #11817
Just a thought.
Having three senses of [ … ] gets confusing too, as Henry has pointed out.
Not having -> would be confusing too. Cognitive clues mitigate against obfuscation.
>> I'm not sure we want to automatically surface readable port names as
>> variables. I think there would be a lot of room for collision with
>> user-defined variables. If you want to refer to $secondary, then we
>> need a specialize syntax (e.g., Murray's suggestion of @secondary).
>
> Ah, yes, that’s a good point. So @secondary or port("secondary").
> I think that’s right.
>
> Be seeing you,
> norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh
> Lead Engineer
> MarkLogic Corporation
> Phone: +1 512 761 6676
> www.marklogic.com
Received on Friday, 15 April 2016 18:34:45 UTC