public class Contact {
sequence {
string Name;
string? Email;
}
}
public class Test {
static void Main() {
Contacts cs = <Contacts>
<Contact>
<Name>Erik Meijer</Name>
<Email>{"emeijer"
+"@"+
"microsoft.com"}
</Email>
</Contact>
<Contact>
<Name>Dare Obasanjo</Name>
</Contact>
</Contacts>;
...
}
}
-- IsaacGouy - 09 Jan 2004
I like the idea of a language that understands xml and can express and check types for it. But imho xml literals are just ugly. Humans should not have to grok XML
Though most things(like gui's) could be written in some xml format, it's better to have some syntax that's more general and easier to read.
-- ArjanB - 09 Jan 2004
Never wanted to read much XML myself. OTOH when I read about Groovy support for various markup languages from XML, HTML it seems reasonable to represent snippets of XML by... well, snippets of XML.
That seems more obvious and more general.
-- IsaacGouy - 10 Jan 2004
Speaking from experience from working with Groovy, Groovy markup is absolutely wonderful for some things, But sometimes,
it's even more awkward to write XML tree constructors in function-invocation syntax than in XML syntax. It can be very annoying.
Using XML in-place can be terrific - for a great example, see Scala.
-- MarkCC - 03 Jan 2005
| Topic TreeDataConstruction . { Edit | Attach | Ref-By | Printable | Diffs | r1.6 | > | r1.5 | > | r1.4 | More } |
|
Revision r1.6 - 03 Jan 2005 - 00:09 GMT - MarkCC Parents: WebHome > FeatureProposals |
Copyright © 1999-2003 by the contributing authors.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback. |