On Feb 19, 2008 3:02 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob La Quey wrote: > > > Agree that the nodes are polymorphic but I do _not_ see > > what that has to do with static typing. Please explain. > > If the object must be statically typed, the static type must carry the > union of all the interfaces that the object *might* be as opposed to > just the interface of what the object *is*. > > > Maybe what you are saying is that if a node were > > a single data type then compile time checking > > could be imposed? > > No, in this instance, run-time checking is a better fit. The type of > the XML node is dependent upon the input data.
Agreed. I just do not understand why in the previous message you said, > To be fair, though, lots of the junk in the SAX way of traversing XML is > to deal with the fact that XML "nodes" are polymorphic while the > implementation language is statically typed." What do polymorphic nodes have to do with static typing? > Now, part of the issue is just that the XML specification sucks. The > whole distinction between attributes and children was an engineering > disaster. LOL, I made that argument almost a decade ago now. It fell stillborne as far to radical a point of view. See http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/11/sml/ So it goes, BobLQ > > -a > > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg > -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
