[sc34wg3] CTM draft dtd. 2007-09-09 - Templates

[Gabriel Hopmans]

Hello,

On 10/6/07, Lars Heuer <heuer at semagia.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> > To my mind, and I think also most users who are not also programmers,
> (1) is
> > far tidier, more readable, more visually appealing and less confusing
> than a
> > syntax in which the colons are sometimes there (names and occurrences)
> and
> > sometimes not (associations expressed through templates):
>
> No, if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I would
> call it a duck. And if make binary template invocations look similar
> to occurrences, template invocations walk like an occurrence and quack
> like an occurrence, but they are not occurrences.
>
> And stealing identifiers from the namespace is not very user friendly,
> too.
>
> It has nothing to do with a programmer's point of view. The
> side-effect of your proposal is that the parser has more work to do
> and it puts some burden the person who wants to implement that thing,
> but that's not the main point.
>
> Occurrences look different from names, topics look different from
> associations... Why should binary template invocations look like
> occurrences with all the disadvantages it includes (for the *user*)?


I agree with Lars here.  It is confusing to see colons only (as in example
[1]) and that the binary template invocations look like occurrences is
indeed a disadvantage for the user. (And I am not a programmer).

Gabriel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.petesbox.net/pipermail/sc34wg3/attachments/20071007/ce54507d/attachment.htm