Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

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 20:40 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.