Antti Koivunen wrote:
> > Thanks for your comments!
>
> Glad to be of help :)
>
> BTW, I know it's not our first priority, but one idea for the name could
> be 'FlowScript'. It doesn't seem to be in wide use and has a nice sense
> of 'flow of script' (although the file suffix might be FS ;).
A
It seems that the syntax is pretty much agreed upon, I look forward to
seeing it in action. When you have worked out the details, you could
perhaps post a brief summary of the key syntax elements.
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> ... I was actually thinking of jWeave, which expresses the
> interweav
On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 12:57:20 +0200, Antti Koivunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> function f1( a, b, *args )
> >> {
> >> for (var i = 0; i < args.length; i++) {
> >> a[i](a, b);
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > Where did I see this syntax? I like this one, so let's stick
>> function f1( a, b, *args )
>> {
>> for (var i = 0; i < args.length; i++) {
>> a[i](a, b);
>> }
>> }
>>
>
> Where did I see this syntax? I like this one, so let's stick with
> it. I eliminates the need to assign ... to a variable, and it avoid
> implicit, hidden vari
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:03:07 +0200, Antti Koivunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>I agree, but would point out that it's possible (to some extent) to
> >>have variable number of arguments using an implicit argument array
> >>(and a function that's aware of it), e.g. in JavaScript it's common
> >
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:12:14 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > No, you didn't get my point: I totally agree that reduced verbosity is a
> > good thing for people that are used to a language, but I believe that
> > implicit behavior (means 'n
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 10:17:39 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:12:14 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> > >
> > > > Blocks of code are declared with curly braces ('{' an
On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:19:37 +0200, Antti Koivunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> Built-in datatypes are numbers, arrays, dictionaries and function
> objects. There is a special type 'void', that has a single possible
> value nam
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
Built-in datatypes are numbers, arrays, dictionaries and function
objects. There is a special type 'void', that has a single possible
value named 'void'.
>>>What about 'strings', 'dates' and the like?
>>>
>>Oh, yes, those too ;-)
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:15:32 +0200, Antti Koivunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>See the comments below. I'll try to look at things like an average
>>web programmer would, so the results might look more like JavaScript
>>than Scheme (but JavaScript is a well known l
> "Piroumian, Konstantin" wrote:
> >
> > Good day!
> >
> >
> > > > > > Built-in datatypes are numbers, arrays, dictionaries and
function
> > > > > > objects. There is a special type 'void', that has a single
possible
> > > > > > value named 'void'.
> > > > >
> > > > > What about 'strings', 'dates
"Piroumian, Konstantin" wrote:
>
> Good day!
>
>
> > > > > Built-in datatypes are numbers, arrays, dictionaries and function
> > > > > objects. There is a special type 'void', that has a single possible
> > > > > value named 'void'.
> > > >
> > > > What about 'strings', 'dates' and the like?
>
Good day!
> > > > Built-in datatypes are numbers, arrays, dictionaries and function
> > > > objects. There is a special type 'void', that has a single possible
> > > > value named 'void'.
> > >
> > > What about 'strings', 'dates' and the like?
> >
> > Oh, yes, those too ;-) I forgot about them.
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:12:14 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> >
> > > Blocks of code are declared with curly braces ('{' and '}'). A block
> > > is really an sequential list of expressions. The value returned by the
> >
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:12:14 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> > Blocks of code are declared with curly braces ('{' and '}'). A block
> > is really an sequential list of expressions. The value returned by the
> > block is the last expression in the
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:15:32 +0200, Antti Koivunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> See the comments below. I'll try to look at things like an average
> web programmer would, so the results might look more like JavaScript
> than Scheme (but JavaScript is a well known language and does share
> some o
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> > Trust the power of open development and trust the open-mindness of the
> > cocoon community.
>
> I do trust the model, but sometime is hard to formulate what you want
> to accomplish.
True :)
> What I've been thinking about is a syntax which emulates the semantic
> o
Piroumian, Konstantin wrote:
>>Hi Ovidiu,
>>
>>
>>>Hi Maciek,
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>Yes, that's right. Using inner classes you can implement
>>>closures. Once you have closures, you can implement continuation
>>>passing style (CPS) very easy. Furthermore, any program written in a
>>>language with dire
See the comments below. I'll try to look at things like an average web
programmer would, so the results might look more like JavaScript than
Scheme (but JavaScript is a well known language and does share some of
the features of real functional languages).
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Fe
> Hi Ovidiu,
>
> > Hi Maciek,
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Yes, that's right. Using inner classes you can implement
> > closures. Once you have closures, you can implement continuation
> > passing style (CPS) very easy. Furthermore, any program written in a
> > language with direct continuations can be tra
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:21:28 +0300, "Piroumian, Konstantin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Thanks for a wonderful lecture. Now I understand why Scheme language
> is used and why people love/will love it. But all that is possible
> with other means too, although it will require implementing
> somet
On 27 Feb 2002 at 9:45, Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
Hi Ovidiu,
> Hi Maciek,
>
> ...
>
> Yes, that's right. Using inner classes you can implement
> closures. Once you have closures, you can implement continuation
> passing style (CPS) very easy. Furthermore, any program written in a
> language with d
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:25:30 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > why isn't simple and friendly positional syntax good enough? (remember:
> > > I'm going to ask you to remove half of the things, and then half again,
> > > until everything that's there *has* to be there, I'll
Hi Maciek,
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:06:39 +0100, "Maciek Kaminski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2002 at 19:46, Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:07:20 +0300, "Piroumian, Konstantin"
> > > ...
> > > Yes, that's true. We've been using actions to interact with the
> > > f
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> Sorry I'm so late with my response, I was busy with an approaching
> deadline...
>
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 13:27:34 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > - how the sitemap invokes a top level flow function:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
On 26 Feb 2002 at 19:46, Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:07:20 +0300, "Piroumian, Konstantin"
> > ...
> > Yes, that's true. We've been using actions to interact with the flow
> > controller. So, why do we need another language to describe the flow? Why not
> > Java?
>
> Because J
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:07:20 +0300, "Piroumian, Konstantin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > As to using a "Component" to do the work, we already have the proper
> > > granularity. I.e. Schecoon. Currently we have Actions to help
control
> > > flow, and we have Matchers and Selectors.
> >
>
>>
On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 13:27:34 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Moreover, we must understand that as soon as books start to come out, we
> *must* support technologies for longer cycles, even if this sacrifices
> elegance and architectural beauty.
>
> I'm sure Carsten and M
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:07:20 +0300, "Piroumian, Konstantin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > As to using a "Component" to do the work, we already have the proper
> > granularity. I.e. Schecoon. Currently we have Actions to help control
> > flow, and we have Matchers and Selectors.
>
> Yes, that
Sorry I'm so late with my response, I was busy with an approaching
deadline...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 13:27:34 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - how the sitemap invokes a top level flow function:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Piroumian, Konstantin wrote:
>
>
>
> >>I'd be more happy if I can describe the flow in a "normal" programming
> >>language, where I can express complex flow by writing a program. This
> >>is what I'm trying to do in the Schecoon sub-project. Using the Scheme
> >>language, and the fact that cont
Piroumian, Konstantin wrote:
>>I'd be more happy if I can describe the flow in a "normal" programming
>>language, where I can express complex flow by writing a program. This
>>is what I'm trying to do in the Schecoon sub-project. Using the Scheme
>>language, and the fact that continuations are
> I think the finite state machine approach is difficult to extend to
> complex sites. It is very difficult, and rather limiting, at least for
> me as a programmer, to think the application as a finite state machine
> only. Any time I need to introduce a new state in my application, I
> have to r
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> The way I intend to hook-up the flow control layer into the system is
> by having the sitemap invoke flow functions or continuations.
Ok.
> If you look in the sitemap of Schecoon right now, you'll see the
> following things:
>
> - how flow scripts are made available to
Antti Koivunen wrote:
>
> Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd be more happy if I can describe the flow in a "normal" programming
> > language, where I can express complex flow by writing a program. This
> > is what I'm trying to do in the Schecoon sub-project. Using the Scheme
> > language, and
Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
>
> I'd be more happy if I can describe the flow in a "normal" programming
> language, where I can express complex flow by writing a program. This
> is what I'm trying to do in the Schecoon sub-project. Using the Scheme
> language, and the fact that continuations are first
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:27:10 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ovidiu and Stefano,
>
> First, I'm new to cocoon, but not the methodology.
Welcome! One more head to think about problems and come up with a way
to solve them ;-)
> I'm in the process of prototyping a conversion from a h
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.com> Subject: [Schecoon] flow control layer
(WAS Re: [RT] Sources and Drai
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:05:13 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that the addition of Actions can attest to that. Lets take
> > Cocoon and instead of a web application platform lets place it in the
> > light of a web services platform (all XML all the time).
>
> [sni
39 matches
Mail list logo
