> Miles Sabin wrote:
> > So maybe the answer would be to come up with a template string syntax
> > that's more idiomatic for XML than printf style. [...]
to which I replied:
> Well, if you insist on using a Java-like language to process XML,
> that's probably the best way out :-)
but I have to take that back after reading subseqent
messages on the thread :-)
In particular, Arjun Ray's idea to have element constructors
take a sequence of child nodes as input and return mutable
references looks promising; you can eliminate a lot of local
variables and make the plumbing more tractable that way.
(Still, I'll stick with Tcl and Haskell for now...)
--Joe English
