Subject: Re: Machine-editable DOM/sexpr model specifying HTML output to be generated?
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 02:01:58 -0500
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>
Robert Maas <> wrote:
| From: Kenny <>
| > 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 Warnock			<>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607