Subject: Re: [xsl] Debugging XSLT From: Adam Turoff <ziggy@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:48:05 -0500 |
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 01:07:01AM +0400, David Tolpin wrote: > It should not be a feature of the language; it is a debugging > facility; moreover, it is a debugging facility using information > exterior to the language to issue a message. Just as a small point of discussion, C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, Smalltalk, Lisp, Scheme, ML, Forth, and any-other-language-you-can-name does not need to morph the language design to support debugging features. Debugging is a feature of the language implementation. If it needs to bleed through into the language design, then the debugging features are a leaky abstraction. It's all well and good that implementors decided to agree on how to debug a stylesheet transformation, and agreed to use post-validation with a schema. But that *extension* doesn't need to be part of the language design. Z. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Debugging XSLT, David Tolpin | Thread | RE: [xsl] Debugging XSLT, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl, Adam Turoff | Date | RE: [xsl] XSLT vs Perl, David Tolpin |
Month |