Subject: RE: vendor neutral XSL extension namespace ? From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@xxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:01:14 -0000 |
> While assignment might allegedly be useful in some contexts, I don't > really see how something that cuts so far across the design principles > of the language could ever really be standardised as part of the > language. Being side effect free affects the whole design and > flavour of the language. I personally feel that an <xsl:assign> construct would make the language much more accessible to a very large number of users, both conventionally-trained programmers and self-taught script writers, and that this outweighs the rather abstract (dare I say academic?) benefits of being side-effect-free. It's worth noting that the implementation of <saxon:assign> is only about 10 lines of code, it certainly doesn't have any radical impact on the design of the software. Of course you could argue that's because Saxon's design never exploited the possibilities of a side-effect free language in the first place - I don't know. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: vendor neutral XSL extension na, Tony Graham | Thread | Re: vendor neutral XSL extension na, David Carlisle |
RE: vendor neutral XSL extension na, Kay Michael | Date | RE: New XT release (19991105), DPawson |
Month |