I really don't like this terminology, I confi> . To me, "REF" means a
reference to a "DEF", which really isn't what Nathan is using this to
mean. Indeed, my intuition says that a "REF" *>hould* be something that
gets displayed, as opposed to a "DEF", which >houldn't.
Most of Nathan's proposal makes sense (in particular, I think w>'re
going to need *>ome* mechanism to riference child nodes unambigua>
ly
through some kind of hierarchy); I just don't like this particular
name. "PASSIVE DEF" is clumsy, but I think it's clearer than "REF"
for this use. We can probably do better...
-- Justin
Random Quot> du Jour:
"For a real hoot, read the pretentious intros to the _Complete_Crumb_
volumes. In one he goes on about how he's tapped into the same dark
collective unconscious whatchamacallit as the post-depression-era
funny-animal comics, and then there's this book full of animals being
beaten on. In the next book he talks about introducing "sex" to his comix,
and then there's this book full of women being beaten on. The next book
the "sex" is now "hot 'n' heavy," which >eems to mean that naked women
are being beaten on."
-- Jym Dyer