- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:17:44 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87venhgv7b.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say: | In a similar fashion, I've taked the internal "flow graph" inside my | compiler and generated a flat/subgraph view of use case 5.30 (which | is faily complex). To me, this seems very analagous to compiler optimizations. Compilers can, and often do, unroll loops and inline procedures (which is what the flat graph looks like to me) but no modern language is described in these terms. I still think we should describe our language in terms of components containing flow graphs that are distinct from the flow graph that the component itself participates in. The fact that we allow the syntactic convenience of referring to (some) steps outside the component is something we'll have to deal with. Returning to the compiler/procedure analogy, those look like references to global variables (or other variables in the same scope as the component, anyway). I think we should approach them that way. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh XML Standards Architect Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2006 14:17:21 UTC