Re: Jelly and X++

[Mark R. Diggory]

Can you briefly clarify "Functional Model" (even with just a link to somewhere else) since it can be easily confused with other definitions of functional programming?

-Mark

Todd Jonker wrote:

James, please be careful when you use phrases like this:

On 2/8/03 10:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Jelly on the other hand is more of a modular and general tool for turning
XML into some kind of scripts - so I guess its a tool for making functional
XML languages.

Jelly, at least in the mid-December snapshot with which I've been working,
is by no means a functional programming model. I tried to start a thread
back then about the small changes that would enable true functional
programming, but it died from lack of enthusiasm (and I got too busy to
pursue it).

Personally, I'd love to see Jelly present a functional model, since I think
it would make many things much easier to program (from the perspective of
the TagLibrary builder).

Anyway, I'm asking that you be careful saying "functional" because
semantics-and-compilers geeks like me will take that to mean something very
specific that is unfortunately not accurate.

BTW I'd be happy to re-open the functional-model discussion, now that I have
a few more cycles to spare.

.T.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]