Re: Other steps

Sure but I think we should tag explicitely the step which could contain
subpiplines, from the one who can't


On 4/30/07, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/30/07, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > hum...but how do you define a new step with the ability to contain
> > subpipelines then ?
>
>
>
> That you can't do.  You'd need a non-interoperable extension element to do
> that.
>
> It would be interesting to have a macro-like facility for this.  I can't
> see trying
> to tackle that in this version of the specification.
>
> --
> --Alex Milowski
> "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of
> the
> inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
> considered."
>
> Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €