Greg Hendershott wrote on 07/28/2015 04:30 PM:
Imagine conversion functions `xexpr->sxml` and `sxml->xexpr`.
Would implementing them be any easier than unifying xexprs and sxml
(or is it really just the same problem)?
Yes, I think those procedures would be easy to implement in such a way
that
Maybe a dumb question, but:
Imagine conversion functions `xexpr->sxml` and `sxml->xexpr`.
Would implementing them be any easier than unifying xexprs and sxml
(or is it really just the same problem)?
If it turns out there isn't any ideal implementation, is there at
least some pragmatic implementa
Oops, I meant to mention Kirill Lisovsky as an early developer of neat
SXML tools, too.
Neil Van Dyke wrote on 07/28/2015 10:51 AM:
In short, it's a historical accident, but the confusion seems less
costly than a compromise would, IMHO.
Details...
15 years ago, the famous Oleg Kiselyov defin
In short, it's a historical accident, but the confusion seems less
costly than a compromise would, IMHO.
Details...
15 years ago, the famous Oleg Kiselyov defined SXML:
http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/xml.html
Scheme people in general saw that SXML was good. Perhaps more a
motivation, we saw t
4 matches
Mail list logo
