xacml — archive

[System]

> > NO!!! It will make API for extensions a living hell.. >How so? Please provide an example of an API for extension functions n this case, in Java or C++. . > We went through this - runtime sequence size check is > MUCH simpler and achieves more with less clutter. >There is not much clutter. The defintion of the list processing >functions is concise (I will specify their semantics with Haskell) > and you can use whatever boolean function you want, even extension > functions. Concise definition in Haskell does not correspond to a concise implementation universally. This is introducing a whole new concept of function objects and abstract interfaces, and for all places - in Target match.. For the case that can be solved using much simpler approach - either runtime sequence size check (you DO get you sequence in runtime anyway, so what we have is just sugar coating it for abstract academic reasons anyway) daniel;