[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Iceberg development (was Re: maps)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Iceberg development (was Re: maps)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:46:50 -0400
• Cc: vdv@d...
• In-reply-to: <D60D8F448216D611A21A00508B62B5BC5CC1@e...>

At 09:50 AM 8/6/2002 -0700, Jeff Lowery wrote:
>In order to validate a universal type, a constraint system would have to be
>applied that defined the lexical and value space (range) that is applicable
>to a specific program environment. It's like a locale for types. Locales
>would be comparable, so that you could determine programmatically how the
>lexical/range definitions of one locale intersect another. You would then
>know which out-of-bounds conditions are possible.

Instead of describing these things as "X is of type Y", I'm thinking it 
might be easier to define the value space through a transformation from a 
lexical representation to a set of values which may or may not involve an 
explicit cast operation.  I'm much happier saying "treat X as of type Y for 
this operation" - that leaves a lot more flexibility and room for fallbacks.

(Thinking about things like scientific notation makes me think that 
fallbacks to multiple possible approaches for something as simple as a 
'float' makes sense.)

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• References:
  • RE: Iceberg development (was Re: maps)
    • From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: CDATA strangeness
• Next by Date: RE: Re: maps
• Previous by thread: Re: Iceberg development (was Re: maps)
• Next by thread: RE: Iceberg development (was Re: maps)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread