Re: Sizes of presentation objects, and MRL parser
Kurt Stirewalt ([email protected])
Tue, 6 Jun 1995 07:14:42 -0400
>> Not sure I understand this. Do you mean to specialize the mtf parser syntax
>> for one particular Object?
>
>Yes, I was suggesting specializing the parser to understand Magnitudes better.
My gut reaction is that this solution is not very orthogonal. The current
MTF syntax is structured around the basic types (Long, Double, etc) and the
composed types Object and Collection. If we then extend it to have special
syntax for a *particular* object as opposed to objects in the abstract, then
it seems that we would be compromising the level of abstraction between MTF
and MRL. Now if we were to make Magnitudes a primitive type like Long or
Double, then one might expect to see syntax for them in the MTF.
But then that would be stacking the language in favor of one particular
model...
The extension is certainly doable, but I'm worried that it might not be what
we want in the long run. What does everyone else think about this?
-- kurt.