Re: Directed vs. Generic syntax reprise (Was: Re: Syntax noodling)

Jeni Tennison wrote:
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Alex Milowski wrote:
>> I think we need to decide whether we will have step definitions in
>> our language.  If so, I think this problem becomes tractable.
>>
>> I think whether or not we have step definitions is the first question we
>> need to answer.
> 
> Do you mean *component* definitions (i.e. definitions of what 
> inputs/outputs/parameters particular components have) here?

Actually, I really do mean step.  In the terminology of the requirements
document, a component represents a certain technology and so has
a particular signature in terms of inputs, outputs, and parameters.  As
a result, if you have directed syntaxes, you need to define the step
in terms of how it orchestrates the component in that the directed
syntax has to map to these parts (i.e. inputs, outputs, and parameters)
of the component.

If you have a generic syntax, you probably don't need such a
definition.

In both cases, you need the component definition that defines what
inputs, outputs, and parameters the component expects.


--Alex Milowski

Received on Sunday, 14 May 2006 20:59:35 UTC