Re: XML: The good, the bad, and the ugly

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:ZK-dnXLgWYjvYencRVn-pA_at_comcast.com...
>
> "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> news:kC1dd.266502$MQ5.256565_at_attbi_s52...
>
> If I had read the following, I would have skipped my previous response to
> you.
>
> > But nothing is checked until runtime, so there are no type-based
> > guarantees you can make about a well-formed LISP program.
> > This isn't a good idea for data management, although there is
> > a small but vocal minority that appears to think it's a good
> > idea for writing programs. (I happen to think it's not a good
> > idea for writing programs, either.)
>
> Hey, if your operands can be of any type, then your operators had better be
> polymorphic, eh?

Ha ha! If I had read *this* response, I would have skipped my previous response.

Sometimes it seems like you have to catch up on all the messages before you respond to any. But then, there are some messages in transit, so that still isn't enough. We need transactions!

Marshall Received on Tue Oct 19 2004 - 17:49:09 CEST