Robert Maas <jaycx2.3.calrobert@spamgourmet.com.remove> wrote:
+---------------
| From: Kenny <kentil...@gmail.com>
| > In your case you would be writing declarative rules for various
| > nodes in the DOM to grow their expansions, with CLOS instances for
| > each node until you are ready to cull the actual XML.
| 
| What does "cull" mean there? That word in that context doesn't make
| sense to me.
+---------------

I suspect that Kenny might have meant "reap" or "harvest". It's common
when dealing with any kind of generated code (e.g., in a compiler) to
have additional auxiliary information in the in-memory data structure
(tree or DAG or general graph, whatever) and then once you've optimized
everything to your liking make one final walk of the in-memory data
("DOM", if you will) to emit the final output format -- XML in this case.

Kenny's use of "cull" could be quite reasonably seen as a flip side
of the usual approach in which, instead of reaping the desired bits,
one culls everything *but* the desired final output format. Viewing
it either way, you're separating the wheat from the chaff (to add yet
another metaphor to the stew).

+---------------
| Why are CLOS instances needed at all for this application?
+---------------

I dunno, because it might make it easier to customize the various
optimization/walker phases???  ;-}


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607