[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Think about Java's inner classes (added in 1.1) and generics (coming
up in 1.5): those are pretty huge additions to the language too.
This being said, XPath 2.0 is mostly backward-compatible with 1.0, so
I don't see how the nature of the language is changed. Then adding
variables, iterators, and conditionals to XPath was much needed, and
not too shocking an addition to me.
But I understand that you are referring more to the issue of typing in
XPath 2.0?
-Erik
Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 19:14, Erik Bruchez wrote:
>
>
>>Also, there is a natural need for more functionality. If you were to
>>look at the evolution of Java over the last eight years, what would
>>you find out? My guess is that Java has largely beaten the market
>>growth ;-)
>
>
> IMO, complexity is not the main point here. What's happening with XPath
> 2.0 is that you're changing the nature of the language, like if you said
> for Java: "the next version will not be interpreted but compiled" or
> "the next version will be dynamically typed" or maybe more to the point
> "you will have to provide a UML model before you can define a class in
> the next version".
>
> Eric
>
|
