Subject: [xsl] RE: RE; Re: RE: syntax sugar for call-template From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:05:16 -0800 (PST) |
Hi Mike, > > It is possible to have a positional only syntax form like in: > > > > fn(functionQName, p1="p1Value" ... pN="pNValue") > > > > ... The above will be directly usable from within an XPath expression. > > > Not within an XPath 1.0 expression it won't. > > Within the XSL+XPath conformance rules, we have the option of defining new > extension functions and extension elements, we don't have the option of > extending the XPath syntax. > > (If it weren't for that, I'd be perfectly happy with named arguments in > function calls.) I'd also be happy -- can't this be proposed for XPath 2.0? As for the nearest future, a slightly changed syntax will fit into XPath 1.0: fn(functionQName, p1Value, ... pNValue) The above is strictly positional. We could also have the following fn(functionQName, "p1Name p1Value", ... "pNName pNValue") all arguments are name-value pairs and this is essentially passing arguments by name. Or we could even have the following: fn(functionQName, "p1Value", "p2Value", "p3Name p3Value",... "pNName pNValue") here the first two arguments are passed by position and the rest -- by name. Dimitre Novatchev. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] side effect definition, Michael Kay | Thread | [xsl] Defining XSLT functions in XS, Jeni Tennison |
[xsl] side effect definition, Gavin Bong | Date | Re: [xsl] RE: Designs for XSLT func, David . Rosenborg |
Month |