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

Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 08:09:28 -0800
• References: <3C857FD1.DB1D2EE6@p...> <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E05571575@r...> <200203060231.g262Vau12882@d...> <200203061554.g26Fsvu14989@d...>

Joe English wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> I do almost all of my XML processing in Tcl and Haskell;

Still wtih Tcl?!?! I give you extra points for loyalty.

> the former is untyped so conversion is implicit, and the
> latter is statically typed so dynamic type hints don't help
> any.  But I can see where this would be useful in a latently
> typed language like Python or Scheme; a general-purpose
> data binding/type converter utility could use xsi:type
> to determine what kind of application object to manufacture.

The usual trick for statically typed languages is to compile the schema
into code that implements the conversions for you. Once again its merely
a convenience.

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Unnecessary decoration (was Re: Stupid Question)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by Date: schema content model question
• Previous by thread: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by thread: Unnecessary decoration (was Re: Stupid Question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread