XQueryX - re: was : re : was .... too many threads

[David <dlee@calldei.com>]

Rewriting an XQueryX converer  in XQueryX doesnt seem particularly 
"helpful" until there are native XQueryX parsers.
But an XQuery implementation would have the right spirit ...
Then an XQueryX implementation would be a good exercise.

Any reverse parsers ?  XQuery -> XQueryX ?

I'm thinking of doing the same for xmlsh (making an XML representation) 
but havent put in the work.
Several people have suggested it would be "a good idea" but noone's 
suggested the'd actually use it.

Any ideas on the actual user base for XQueryX ? I'm curious if anyone 
given the choice would prefer writing in it over XQuery.
Presumably (?) its mainly for machine generation/consumption.
This is my main reason for considering an xmlshX version.  My early 
attempts at writing XProc to xmlsh I stopped, not because xmlsh couldnt
do everything xproc can (it can and much more) but because getting the 
syntax right in a machine generated transformation was tricky.
That and the static and dynamic errors from XProc are tricky to emulate 
exactly.  I did have about a 90% coverage of the "success" test suite at 
one point.
The error test suite was tough though (and covers about 80% of the tests).

So I consider an xmlshX syntax might make the code generation easier... 
but I shudder to think of anyone humanly writing in the XML format ...

Is that the experience of XQueryX ? Or do some people prefer the XML 
syntax for human authorship ?


-------------------------
David A. Lee
dlee@calldei.com
http://www.calldei.com
http://www.xmlsh.org


On 4/15/2010 7:19 AM, Michael Kay wrote:
> There is a published XSLT stylesheet* that converts XQueryX to XQuery. So
> you just do the conversion, and then run the query using a product such as
> Saxon.
>