search

xproc / notes

Notes and other informal scriblings about XProc
10 stars 3 forks source link

should options be inputs ? #20

Open xquery opened 8 years ago

xquery commented 8 years ago

we have discussed this before, but there are implications in terms of an API version, worth a re-discuss.

htInEdin commented 8 years ago

James Fuller writes:

we have discussed this before, but there are implications in terms of an API version, worth a re-discuss.

I think so. Or rather, I think all options should be (understood as) set from pipes, so that the dependency/ordering story is uniform.

ht

   Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
  10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/

[mail from me always has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

xquery commented 8 years ago

to simplify, would the signature of a step impl in another language be:

myLangFunc($options as map,Inputs ...)

or

we provide options as an input

myLangFunc(Inputs ...)

In previous discussions I sided with the former but I am concerned if we can get a stable signature across languages.

ndw commented 8 years ago

I'd be reluctant to take on "stable signatures across languages" as a requirement. You wind up in IDL hell with APIs that suck in every language.

xquery commented 8 years ago

yes agreed, I am doing some research in how we might use annotations