[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XInclude vs SAX vs validation
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:06:15 -0400
David Brownell wrote:
> As I'm saying the purpose of XInclude should be. It's certainly
> suggested by the name's analogy to #include.
All the world's not C. There have been for many years more
selective kinds of includes in programming languages. Consider
Python's "from F import A, B, C ..."
> It's a pretty huge leap to say that, for example, C/C++ doesn't have syntax
> or modularity below the file level.
Right. What it doesn't have is source-code addressibility below
the file level. (Grove weenies, this is your opportunity to
define a property set for C/C++ programs.)
Not to perambulate || John Cowan <email@example.com>
the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel