[no subject]

From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:57:57 -0500 (EST)
> On the whole I rather think, that the decission for eagerness was
> probably mostly carried by the arguments for simplicity and/or
> compatibility with the Scheme way of things, rather than by
> theoretical considerations for speed and equivalence...

I agree. Also, consider the simplicity of eager implementations compared
to lazy implemenations.

> Also I wonder if it would not still be possible (even if not really
> standard-conformant) to implement DSSSL in a lazy way, and probably
> most Style-Sheets would continue to work unchanged...

Yes, there is a theorem that proves that *all* stylesheets that currently
work would continue to work. Some which do not currently work would start
to work, too. In some sense it would be DSSSL++.

One other issue is that thanks to the eagerness, we can develop a
superset of DSSSL with side effects and know how it would behave. This
has already been proposed.

 Paul Prescod

 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist

Current Thread
  • [no subject]
    • Paul Prescod - from mail1.ability.netby web4.ability.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA23927Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:58:46 -0500 (EST) <=