Re: Delimiters for pragmas

[venting ...]

Steven Pemberton writes:

>> Making pragmas something different where the only intended audience
>> is implementations, and each implementation can do its thing runs the
>> risk of implementations using it as a playground for ixml divergence,
>> and as a place where implementations can satisfy use cases without
>> making them a standardised part of the language.

I don't know whom you're quoting here, or if you're not quoting I don't
know why this was marked as a quotation. Can you explain?

> And, by the way, the discussions this week have only strengthened my
> fears. To my eyes, pragmas are turning into a monster.

Yes, you said during the call that the email discussions this week had
convinced you that everyone in the group had plans to implement some
specific pragmas.  That strikes me as a remarkable misreading of the
email reecord. I wonder if I can ask you to say what pragmas you think
the email shows people are preparing to implement?

I will confess that while I had not had any plans to implement any
pragmas in the near term (beyond possibly an annotation to mark things
that can safely be recognized by a single call to the XPath matches()
function if the analysis proves too difficult to do automatically),
after this morning's call I am strongly tempted to change my plans and
implement namespaces, text injection, nonterminal renaming, and dynamic
naming, not with pragmas but using incompatible extensions to the syntax
of ixml.  That's not a terribly constructive approach, but it would be
an appropriate expression of my current anger.

Michael



-- 
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
http://blackmesatech.com

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2022 17:38:39 UTC