Subject: Re: Abbreviated Location Paths... From: Jason Diamond <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:33:53 -0700 |
Kay Michael wrote: > > I can't say I'm happy with the compromise of including both forms. That's > always a bad design choice: twice as much work for the implementor, twice as > many pages in the manual, twice the learning curve for users, larger and > slower executables, twice the number of bugs. It also suggests a lack of > clarity in the design objectives. > I thought the same at first but upon closer examination of the syntaxes, the abbreviated syntax is really no more than simple defaults for a few of the rather verbose, yet common, statements. It will hardly be twice the implementation, instruction, resources, etc. I actually think the abbreviated syntax doesn't even warrant its own section and having it as such only reinforces the false impression that they are two disparate entities. On the other hand, I couldn't find any explanation nor was I able to justify one on my own for the distinctions between expressions and patterns. Is this purely an implementation issue or am I missing something? Jason. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Abbreviated Location Paths..., Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Abbreviated Location Paths..., James Clark |
RE: Adobe/Sun FO grants, Liam R. E. Quin | Date | RE: New XT release, Jonathan Borden |
Month |