Better Native XML Support

Russell Leggett russell.leggett at
Tue Jan 17 11:38:38 PST 2012

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Grant Husbands <esdiscuss at>wrote:

> Russell Leggett wrote:
> > If you desperately need it, you should be able to make a library for it,
> and
> > then if you need the extra syntax, add an extra compile step
> I was simply making sure everyone was on the same page as regards e4x
> and was making suggestions to try to bridge the gap. I don't need it
> myself, though I imagine the "you" there wasn't necessarily aimed at
> me.

Yeah, not directed at you. Couldn't remember how the thread started. You
seemed to be an advocate so that's where I went with it. Sorry.

> > I'm not saying its an insignificant effort, but it seems fairly
> > straightforward. The standardized grammar for it is defined as an
> extension
> > to Ecmascript after all.
> Though source to source processors are a source of significant
> friction (complicating build and debug), this would indeed be
> something for the community of e4x supporters to consider. Hopefully,
> the right people will see this thread.

It is a source of friction, but its also extremely commonplace now. I
imagine something like an e4x pre-processor would output code that was
pretty easy to debug as well, and it sounds like we'll be seeing source
mapped debuggers soon enough.

> I think that assignment into quasis may yet be useful, but perhaps it
> doesn't belong in this thread.
> Regards,
> Grant Husbands.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list