& XSLT * A. Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@[...].de>  [2005-10-24 23:30]:
>  I would instead prefer to have to explicitly request the fixup
>  filter with something like `Fixup_Filter => 1` when Iâ??m
>  constructing a handler, and the handler would wrap itself and
>  return the wrapper. That way people whoâ??re coding against a
>  specific handler can exploit its known convenience features
>  whereas those whoâ??re coding for generality can do the wrapping
>  explicitly without any fuss. Plus it avoids putting a bunch of
>  hairy magic in the handlers and the fixup filter.

And I missed the most important reason: it makes it impossible
for people to miss the fact that theyâ??re using a fixup-filtered
handler, so they wonâ??t write code which emits an incomplete
stream without noticing, and then having their code break if
someone feeds it a handler which does not wrap itself in a fixup
filter.

Plus, last not least, people who know their stream will always be
complete at every stage of the pipe can avoid the performance hit
of having their handlers hook fixup filters into the chain under
the covers.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle
â??Like punning, programming is a play on words.â?
   â?? Alan J. Perlis, â??Epigrams in Programmingâ?
_______________________________________________
Perl-XML mailing list
Perl-XML@[...].com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs