At 9:54 PM -0600 on 6/28/99, Scott Raney wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Ruediger zu Dohna wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> I know this is very much to ask for, but i think it would make it a
>> hell lot easier to parse xml et.al.
>
>I think that's a whole 'nother can of worms. Current thinking here is
>that "parsing" html using scripts is probably the wrong way to go.
>Instead we should consider a way to convert it directly into an object
>architecture, and access (or edit) it using that, and then convert it
>back to a text string if necessary.
>
Scott -- are -- you -- loosing -- it? Did you not now just ask us to write
a NetScape into xTalk?
>Actually passing things as pointers is pretty much obsolete in C++
>where one usually uses references for this. And in that case, you
>*can't* tell from the call that it's going to be changed or not
>without looking at the function (or at least for a "const" parameter
>in the prototype, which makes the problem somewhat easier than in
>xTalk). Would it be sufficient to just add this as "syntactic sugar"
>and have it stripped off, or must it actually generate an error if
>they don't match?
We'd have to then start explaining what happens with multiple references to
the same variable, that variables don't belong to their creator, runtime
effeciency, etc.
