>> Note that
>>
>> <define name="foo" as="nameClass">
>> <name>x</name>
>> <name>y</name>
>> </define>
>>
>> would be equivalent to
>>
>> <define name="foo" as="nameClass">
>> <choice>
>> <name>x</name>
>> <name>y</name>
>> </choice>
>> </define>
>
> I wonder if that would be too confusing.
Two reasons to allow it:
- we already allow multiple child elements when defining a pattern
- we already allow multiple child name classes in an except with
semantics of choice
<anyName>
<except>
<name>foo</name>
<name>bar</name>
<name>baz</name>
</except>
</anyName>
A reference to a name class is quite likely to be used in an except.
Conceptually, a name class is just a set of names, and the natural way
to define a set of names is to list them as children of the define. I
would say that this:
<define name="myNames" as="nameClass">
<name>foo</name>
<name>bar</name>
<name>baz</name>
</define>
<define name="other">
<element>
<anyName>
<except>
<ref name="myNames"/>
</except>
</anyName>
<ref name="whatever"/>
</element>
</define>
is more natural than forcing a <choice>:
<define name="myNames" as="nameClass">
<choice>
<name>foo</name>
<name>bar</name>
<name>baz</name>
</choice>
</define>
especially given that you are already allowed to write:
<define name="other">
<element>
<anyName>
<except>
<name>foo</name>
<name>bar</name>
<name>baz</name>
</except>
</anyName>
<ref name="whatever"/>
</element>
</define>
James
