commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Jonker <...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: Jelly and X++
Date Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:34:49 GMT
James, please be careful when you use phrases like this:

On 2/8/03 10:53 AM, james_strachan@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Jelly on the other hand is more of a modular and general tool for turning
> XML into some kind of scripts - so I guess its a tool for making functional
> XML languages.

Jelly, at least in the mid-December snapshot with which I've been working,
is by no means a functional programming model.  I tried to start a thread
back then about the small changes that would enable true functional
programming, but it died from lack of enthusiasm (and I got too busy to
pursue it).

Personally, I'd love to see Jelly present a functional model, since I think
it would make many things much easier to program (from the perspective of
the TagLibrary builder).

Anyway, I'm asking that you be careful saying "functional" because
semantics-and-compilers geeks like me will take that to mean something very
specific that is unfortunately not accurate.

BTW I'd be happy to re-open the functional-model discussion, now that I have
a few more cycles to spare.

.T.

-- 
                 War is NOT a necessity!

  http://UnitedForPeace.org/    http://MoveOn.org/
  http://NotInOurName.net/      http://CWG.org/


Mime
View raw message