--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martijn, Matt, the example above would be necessary
> if and only
> if <resourcecollection> only had a
> add(ResourceSelector). In
> practice, we'll likely have specialized
> addAnd(ResourceSelector) and co
> so that if can be written just:
oh, that's partly what I was trying to avoid. Part of
the beauty, to me, of some of the latest introspection
code is the ability to use add() methods. It makes me
unhappy to have to specify element names in my
configuration methods where there is no ambiguity.
For example, if you have to add multiple elements of
the same type to be used for different purposes, then
okay, how else would you know which was which? But in
the case of the <restrict> ResourceCollection (which
is the context for ResourceSelectors), why should I
have to support addAnd(), addOr(), addNot(),
addNone(), addMajority, etc., etc., when I could code
add(ResourceSelector) and be done with it? That takes
us back to either forcing the explicit declaration at
all times or trying to code something that uses
context to decide which "and" the user means at
runtime... fine, but also complicated and, as Peter
pointed out, bound to encounter ambiguity errors.
[trying to snip as much as possible lest these become
unmanageable]
-Matt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
