Re: parameters and pipelines (revised)

Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> | Third, I wonder if we can place some sensible restrictions on when
> | an anonymous parameter port is implicitly declared, along the same
> | lines as for inputs and outputs. So a pipeline only has an implicit
> | declaration for an anonymous parameter port added if (a) there are
> | no other parameter port declarations and (b) one of its contained
> | steps has a parameter port. This would have the advantage of better
> | error reporting when a pipeline user mistakenly passes in parameters
> | rather than options.
> I suppose we could. Thoughts?

Yes, I think this is OK.

> | Can we use the notion of a primary parameter port, just as we have a
> | primary standard port? If there's only one parameter port, that's
> | the primary one; otherwise one of the parameter ports can be marked
> | with primary="yes". Then we can say that the anonymous parameter set
> | gets passed in to the primary parameter port. That would, at least,
> | mirror the way normal inputs work.
> Sigh. Yet more concepts, but yes, that does sound like the right
> answer.

Yes, I can live with that too, as it actually _isn't_ a new concept,
it's making the idea of 'primary' apply to both kinds of input ports,
not just one.

- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail:
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)


Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 13:42:02 UTC