> From: Arjun Ray [mailto:]
>
> Yes, as a tree-building "little language". Miles has already
> said that there's a bit of devil's advocacy in all this, but
> that shouldn't prevent us from exploring the idea.
Sure.
> | Fwiw, I don't see *either* of these as that desirable to program in
> | (but probably better than what I'm already using).
>
> Which is...? ;-)
DOM/JDOM/SAX/XmlReader... essentially, not XSLT.
> Not in XOM. Method chaining is Bad Java, so they say.
> Mutators have void return signatures.
If that's an argument from thread safety (is it?), then I guess if you
got multiple threads running through a treebuilding exercise, you've got
other problems. Maybe constructors returning 'this' is a bad idea. But
for anyone that's interested: the book "a little java, a few patterns"
is an interesting counterpoint to this mutators return void argument. A
nice read.
> Some people like long names. In these days where IDE editors
> support name completion, it isn't a big deal. (I prefer
> short names myself, btw.)
Well me too, until I can get an ide to read for me! Not that I'm asking
for APL or anything...; "append" would be fine. It's when you use an API
day in day out, using two words in computerEnglisch when one was enough
gets tedious.
> | At this point, we might as well give in and use Lisp, being
> a natural
> | fit for manipulating syntax trees.
>
> Well, the discussion seemed to heading that way. Modulo the
> surface syntax, isn't XPath very lispish in feel?
If you're thinking about Lisp macros, yes. I think XSLT is Lispish, but
then look at its Daddy, DSSSL.
Bill de hÓra
--
Propylon
www.propylon.com
