- From: Alex Miłowski <alex@milowski.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 16:07:31 -0800
- To: XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Yes, I expect that too. That's where the analogy breaks down a bit. A step without options computed from inputs is exactly like a closure. A step with options computed from inputs transforms into a step with additional inputs. Within that transformation it becomes a closure. I think we can explain that distinction as a syntactic convenience. On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Alex Miłowski writes: > >> I went there too but inputs are like function arguments and outputs >> are like returns. >> >> I'll make the additional observation that our steps are more like >> closures where we bind options to step invocations and make something >> that operations on inputs and produces outputs. > > I'm with you on closures, but not on distinguishing i/o from options. I > expect to be able to set options from variables, whose value in turn > comes from some pipe. > > ht > -- > Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh > 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 > Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk > URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ > [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam] -- --Alex Miłowski "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
Received on Friday, 19 February 2016 00:08:04 UTC