Re: Low hanging fruit?

/ "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| On 5/30/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
|> / "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
|> |> No, it'll be (p:inline|p:document|p:pipe|p:empty)*
|> |
|> | hum...
|> |>
|> |> If you don't provide any binding at all, you get a binding to the
|> |> default readable port.
|> |
|> | Ok fair enough
|> |
|> | But the model as explained is troublesome (some would end up trying to
|> | understand, p:empty as "empty document" which has no meaning)
|> | so I guess
|> | (p:empty|(p:inline|p:document|p:pipe)+)?
|>
|> Not quite, I think it's:
|>
|>   (p:empty? | (p:inline|p:document|p:pipe)*)
|
| Is this really different ?!?

No, I overlooked the trailing "?" on your proposed model. :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Most human beings have an almost
http://nwalsh.com/            | infinite capacity for taking things for
                              | granted.--Aldous Huxley