- From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 13:19:56 +0200
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- CC: public-qt-comments@w3.org
David Carlisle wrote: >>It's also handy when it can be used as it is, without tweaking or >>filtering; no function needs to be defined, no filters written. People >>can simply use it. >> > Most modern programming languages have a relatively small core, > together > with a larger (often much larger) standard library of functions that > are written within the language. Yes, no doubt. Above I said that the function should be available to the developer, without him being required to write it. > Arguing that a function should not be a primitive function in the > language is not the same as arguing that it should not be available to > the user. But instead of suggesting that it be moved to a (to be created ?) standard library, you said that "deep-equality ought to be moved to the user-defined examples appendix". I'd be OK with moving the function to a standard library of functions, if this stdlib will be part of a W3C rec. [1] Tobi [1] (or does it (standard library of functions spec or section) exist already? I didn't yet read all the ten specs.) -- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 07:21:07 UTC