Re: Relax p:variable restrictions

"Toman, Vojtech" <vojtech.toman@emc.com> writes:
> I am not sure about the need for rule 4, though. The moving of steps
> is an internal detail. In your last example, the two ex:foo variables
> have the same name, but they are actually two *different* variables
> (as I infer from the text of rule 4). With that in mind, I can imagine
> an implementation that assigns variables internal unique ids which
> makes it then possible to move steps and/or variables around (with
> restrictions given by the dependency graph, of course) without
> introducing lexical scoping problems. A less sophisticated
> implementation might be more conservative when reordering steps that
> depend on variables - but that is fine.

Perhaps. I had in mind making sure that there was always an order of
evaluation that would work linearly, but perhaps you're right and that
isn't necessary. 

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676
www.marklogic.com