Since you're the one writing the code you're welcome to choose
whatever path you'd like. If you can make an XML path work then
that's fine with me.
t
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo
> > \spadcommand{x:=2}\bound{x}
> > \spadcommand{y:=3}\bound{y}
> > \spadcommand{x*y}\free{x}\free{y}
> >
> > clicking on the third expression tells the browser that it needs to
> > find a meaning for x and a meaning for y somewhere prior in the page.
> > these are determined by the \bound expre
{x:=2}
{y:=3}
{x*y}
requires a huge program to parse (DOM or SAX, callbacks) vs
(spadcommand "x:=2" (bound 'x))
(spadcommand "y:=3" (bound 'y))
(spadcommand "x*y" (free '(x y)))
requires (read) to parse and (eval (read)) to execute.
(defun spadcommand (expr bindings)
(when (eq (car bindings)
having lost a year of my life working with XML, XSLT, DOM, SAX, JDOM, etc.
i can honestly say that i'm religiously opposed to XML.
you're welcome to try to convince me otherwise but i warn you that it
is a hard fight as i have a lot of really bad war stories. XML is a
dead-end technology. it is th
