|
Subject: Re: [xsl] [Musing] User Preference for Functional Programming From: Liam R E Quin <liam@xxxxxx> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:54:49 -0400 |
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 10:32 -0700, Hank Ratzesberger wrote:
>
> I am only conversing here, I hope not to take your time if you are not
> interested.
Do not worry: you pose an interesting and useful question.
[...]
> awardType.getAwardID().getAwardContractID().setModNumber(fpdsInfo.getModNum());
vs:
> /award/awardID/awardContractID/modNumber=FpdsInfo:modNum
>
> And a colleague spoke to me and said, 'Well, I much prefer action
> words, they explain what is happening'
Well, your first example is much close to a modern programming idiom, so
it will have a high comfort factor. Your second, by the way, would be
greatly improved with spaces around the = sign.
There are two intermingled questions here:
. which syntax is preferred
. which semantics are preferred.
But the two approaches are also not mutually exclusive. For example,
what if you write,
xpath("/award/awardID/awardContractID").setModNumber(fpdsInfo.getModNum());
Now there's a declarative part embedded in a procedural part. You could
go one step further,
xpath("/award/awardID/awardContractID") .
setModNumber( xpath("FpdsInfo:modNum") );
Both the .set/.get and the XPath syntx are domain-specific languages,
but people come to them with different expectations.
Liam
--
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| [xsl] [Musing] User Preference for , Hank Ratzesberger | Thread | Re: [xsl] [Musing] User Preference , Hank Ratzesberger |
| [xsl] [Musing] User Preference for , Hank Ratzesberger | Date | Re: [xsl] [Musing] User Preference , Hank Ratzesberger |
| Month |