RE: p:choose is poorly and/or incorrectly specified

> I wonder if this is a common enough problem that we ought to add a
> primary output port to p:error, documented as never producing any
> output.

I like the idea, but it would still suffer with the problem that: "each
subpipeline must declare the same number of outputs with the same names
and the same settings with respect to sequences"

If we add a primary output port to p:error, we will have to decide
whether it produces sequences (possible problems with other subpipelines
whose outputs *don't* produce sequences), or not (possible problems ith
other subpipelines whose outputs *do* produce sequences).

I don't know if we can simply say that, for instance, enabling sequences
on p:error's output port would be the best solution for most cases. I am
afraid that either way we decide, people will complain...

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 08:55:19 UTC