DSSSL side effect-freeness

Subject: DSSSL side effect-freeness
From: "Frank A. Christoph" <christo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:06:02 +0900
I know we have been over this issue before, but would somebody please
reiterate the reason that the DSSSL expression language must be side
effect-free?  It seems very odd to me that a language which has been so
conscientiously purged of side effects is nevertheless call-by-value.  I
have mentioned before that, although DSSSL is side effect-free, it is not
"read effect-free", since there are procedures whose result depends on the
context, e.g., current-node, process-children.  Is the CBV behavior
necessary in some way to allow lazy grove implementations?  What about the
so-called side effect-freeness?

--FC

P.S.: No one has commented on my last (1/22) message concerning possible
implementions of "continued on next page"... Should I take this to mean that
_no one_ feels a need for the feature, or that no one wants to venture a
guess?



 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist


Current Thread
  • DSSSL side effect-freeness
    • Frank A. Christoph - from mail1.ability.netby web4.ability.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA21877Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:01:20 -0500 (EST) <=
      • G. Ken Holman - from mail1.ability.netby web4.ability.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA00629Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:44:17 -0500 (EST)
        • Harald Hanche-Olsen - from mail1.ability.netby web4.ability.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA03547Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:26:24 -0500 (EST)
          • Paul Prescod - from mail1.ability.netby web4.ability.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA10715Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:42:59 -0500 (EST)
      • Paul Prescod - from mail1.ability.netby web4.ability.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA10659Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:42:27 -0500 (EST)