--- James Fuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From another point of view, there must be a reason why most languages
> have not decided as treating XML as a first class citizen.

I've had several positions where we do moderately large-scale stuff and
don't touch XML; I use strings, floats, and ints every day.  You talk
about how critical XML is to what you do, but it's been almost useless
to me at several jobs.  If I want useless things baked into a language,
I want *my* useless things baked in :)

As for supporting XML as a type:  a class is a type definition. 
Objects are merely user-defined types.  With Perl 6, they're even
easier to work with, so there are your types and they should be pretty
darned good.  Other than the fact that you're forced to pick something
which really suits your needs, why would you want to force *me* to have
stuff which doesn't suit my needs?  If you'll pardon the tautology,
when complex types are involved, what any user needs is dependent on
what that user needs.


Buy the book  - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Perl and CGI  - http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
Personal blog - http://publius-ovidius.livejournal.com/
Tech blog     - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/

Reply via email to