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

RE: Semantics, Complex Systems, (XSLT) Programs which W rite T

• To: 'John Cowan' <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: Semantics, Complex Systems, (XSLT) Programs which W rite Themselves
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:14:08 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

I see your point.  On the other hand, it is a matter of 
versioning even if output is routed back to input where the 
cycle count identifies the version.  Many models of NLDS 
are viewpoint-dependent.

Careful though; we'll go down the rathole of first cause.

len

From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) scripsit:

> What you are describing is what is sometimes called, 
> "self-modifying code". I've been taught that self-modifying 
> code isn't safe code and I've accepted that as an 
> article of faith, so I can't verify that with facts.
> Still if so, what I would ask is if XML 
> and XSLT (modify by transformation) is safer 
> than when done in other languages and if so, why?

XSLT programs of this type are not *self*-modifying.  Rather, they modify
other code that happens to resemble themselves.  It is then up to something
outside the XSLT environment to re-execute the modified code.

This is no more a case of self-modification than when a compiler compiles a
modified version of itself: the new compiler must be put into effect by
something outside itself, typically an installation routine.

• Prev by Date: Re: Semantics, Complex Systems, (XSLT) Programs which W rite Themselves
• Next by Date: RE: Microsoft Hypes Up XUL As The Greatest Expiriment Since Adam And Eve
• Previous by thread: RE: Semantics, Complex Systems, (XSLT) Programs which W rite Themselves
• Next by thread: Microsoft Hypes Up XUL As The Greatest Expiriment Since Adam And Eve
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread