Re: an idea: ports == options

TL;DR: I really like it!  You’ve got my vote.


When XProc was announced, it seemed like the missing tool that would tie everything together.  But when I tried it, it turned out to be over-engineered, unfathomably complex, and just plain unfriendly.  

That’s how XProc broke my heart.  I wanted to stay with XProc, but it was an abusive relationship.  

So, I decided to break up with XProc.

One day, XProc called me up and said, "I want to get back together.  I know I was bad before, but I can change!"  

XProc explained that it could make our relationship a lot less stressful by making ports and options the same thing.  

I’m still very uneasy.  There’s a lot more about XProc that I’d need to see change, but I think this is *solid* start.  


So, dear XProc, 

If you can do this for me--and if you continue to work on improving some of the other painful things we argued about--I might be willing to give you another chance.

I hope I do.  It’s up to you.  

——Zearin (Tony)

On Feb 16, 2014, at 7:02 AM, Romain Deltour <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Just an idea for XProc v2 (or v4?):
> TL;DR: A proposal to “merge” the concepts of ports and options (an options == a port), while still enabling static dependency graph analysis. Based on the possibility to bind readable ports to variables available in the in-scope bindings of a step.
> …

Received on Sunday, 16 February 2014 16:33:38 UTC