Re: Alternative syntaxes for the prolog

Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> writes:

>> I’d be reluctant to define the prolog as exclusively a set of name-value
>> pairs. It’s the obvious place to put any structures that apply to an
>> entire grammar.
>
> This makes me worried. It means we're trying to design something that
> we don't know what we're designing for.

I don't understand your worry.

We are specifying rules that will allow us, in the future, to add
constructs to the prolog that are not currently allowed.  We need to
ensure that we don't specify the current version of ixml in such a way
that adding things is impossible without unacceptable breakage.

A proposal to structure the prolog exclusively as a set of name-value
pairs will work if we cannot imagine wanting to add anything to the
prolog that has a more complex structure.  But Norm can imagine wanting
to add something with more complex structure.  So can I.

So a design that defines the prolog as a set of name-value pairs doesn't
look promising to Norm or me.

I don't need to know what exactly we are going to want to add to the
prolog in order to answer the question "have you ever wanted to express
things that were more complex than a name/value pair?" with a "yes".

> I'm not a fan of the prolog as it is currently formulated, but if we
> don't know what it is meant to be, I don't see how we can design it at
> all.

I think it is already well established that your sympathy with designing
to allow relatively smooth evolutionary change is limited.  But as far
as I can tell, the consensus in the group is in favor of doing so, as
well as we can.  So I suggest that we record your dissent and move on.

Michael

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

Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2024 19:33:56 UTC