Re: shared-text substrings
Dan Bornstein
(07 Feb 2000 19:59 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Mike Wilson
(08 Feb 2000 17:34 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(08 Feb 2000 17:46 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Per Bothner
(08 Feb 2000 18:06 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings Shriram Krishnamurthi (08 Feb 2000 18:16 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Per Bothner
(08 Feb 2000 19:11 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(08 Feb 2000 20:41 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings Shriram Krishnamurthi 08 Feb 2000 18:16 UTC
Per Bothner wrote: > It's even nicer when your Scheme dialect has keywords: > [...] Keywords in your implementation are wholly unnecesary. This is a data language, not a procedure call context. The XML collection could just as well have used the syntax you propose, or indeed many others. And this is without even getting into the cost of keywords, or indeed even their appropriateness (as a poor man's substitute for objects -- why bother when you have real objects?), etc, that aren't germane here. 'shriram PS: Now that I think about it even more, I *can't* reuse the implementation of keywords built into the implementation (using, say, APPLY), because the set of keywords used by the set of all documents is naturally limitless, whereas keyword syntaxes use a fixed set of keywords. So keywords don't help any.