On Thursday, Oct 23, 2003, at 15:23 Europe/Berlin, Kay, Michael wrote: > > and the saxon experience confirms my observation. > > [...] > I'm sorry, but the notation you are using is not one that I am > familiar with. sorry, i'd hoped it would be a fairly easy to follow. it was only to illustrate agreement on the minimal properties of a first class name. i'll explain. in general, it is the output of simple lisp introspection facilities. lisp being the implementation context for the xml processor which produced the posted examples. [you may have observed a similar approach in the examples i posted. > ? (describe (name $a)) the $a is from p.bother's posts, "(name $a)" is a function application. "(describe ...)" prints the description of that result. > Symbol: ||::\a which is a datum of type symbol, an interned name, > INTERNAL in package: #<Package ""> interned in the set of names named "", > Print name: "a" with a name string, or "local part", of "a" > Value: #<Unbound> > Function: #<Unbound> several properties (a function a data value) which are not material to the discussion > Plist: (:PREFIX "") and an additional property, the prefix. which is also "held" in 32 bits.] the point of which is that, given the "32-bit name" which was mentioned, which is close-enough to first-class, name instances can serve, in themselves, to represent the information produced by decoding and required for encoding, and are, in themselves, a sufficient basis for all operations on a closed model, without recourse to the in-scope-namespace mechanism. i note the mention of runtime name construction, but note also that such operations are known to be unsave, and are unnecessary. ...Received on Thursday, 23 October 2003 11:24:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:43 UTC