- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 19:21:24 -0400
- To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <m2tz374fij.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> writes: > So, if I want to detect and handle specially the case where an > optional option has not been specificed, how can I do so? You can't. And you know this bites harder than I realized. Consider the beginnings of a recursive directory listing step: <p:declare-step xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc" xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc-step" xmlns:pxp="http://exproc.org/proposed/steps" type="pxp:recursive-directory-list"> <p:output port="result"/> <p:option name="path" required="true"/> <p:option name="include-filter"/> <p:option name="exclude-filter"/> <p:directory-list> <p:with-option name="path" select="$path"> <p:empty/> </p:with-option> <p:with-option name="include-filter" select="$include-filter"> <p:empty/> </p:with-option> <p:with-option name="exclude-filter" select="$exclude-filter"> <p:empty/> </p:with-option> </p:directory-list> </p:declare-step> Using four nested p:try/p:catch blocks to deal with the various permutations of $include-filter and $exclude-filter being defined or undefined seems pretty brutal. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A man may by custom fortify himself http://nwalsh.com/ | against pain, shame, and suchlike | accidents; but as to death, we can | experience it but once, and are all | apprentices when we come to it.-- | Montaigne
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 23:22:07 UTC