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 |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Quirks of the printing industry, Christian Leutloff | Thread | Re: DSSSL side effect-freeness, G. Ken Holman |
converting SGML DTDs was Re: DD: DT, Christian Leutloff | Date | Re: Formatting "(Continued on next , G. Ken Holman |
Month |