Re: The Scope of Step Names

Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Alex Milowski <> was heard to say:
> | Erik Bruchez wrote:
> |>
> |> Alex Milowski wrote:
> |>
> |>  > 1. Step must be able to refer to other steps that are
> |>  >    siblings (preceding and following) otherwise you
> |>  >    can't connected steps at all.
> |>
> |> "Preceding siblings" would be enough IMO.
> |
> | I don't think we want to limit to preceding siblings.  If a user
> | wants to structure their pipeline "logically" from their perspective,
> | such a limitation would get in the way.  I can't see how it is
> | any issue for an implementer.
> |
> | Similarly, if a user can't easily determine "before" or just wants
> | to quickly insert a step into their pipeline, they shouldn't have
> | to figure out what "preceding sibling" means just to do that.
> If we imagine that many (perhaps most) authors will eventually rely
> on defaulting at least sometimes, the order of steps will be very
> important. I don't see any benefit in saying that sometimes it isn't.
> And "before" is pretty easy to determine.

I absolute do not thing "before" is easy in all instances.  In addition,
considering we have no defaulting story, I don't a "yet-to-be determined
defaulting story" should be involved in making this decision.

--Alex Milowski

Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 23:58:01 UTC