Subject: [xsl] RE: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for) From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 05:25:16 -0800 (PST) |
"Michael Kay" <michael dot h dot kay at ntlworld dot com> wrote: > > As I already pointed out in my reply to Dave, > > > > > $departments map lower-case(.) > > > > would be ambiguous, as lower-case(.) is a value/string (the > > result of the > > application of lower-case() on . > > > > Actually this syntax is perfectly feasible technically, and isn't far off > from something I myself proposed at one stage. Given that the data model > doesn't currently allow functions or expressions as operands to a function, > all higher-order functionality in XPath 2.0 is currently expressed using > operators that are built into the language. For example E1/E2 and E1[E2] are > both higher-order constructs where E2 is evaluated once for each item in E1, > and it would be quite feasible for (E1 map E2) to work the same way - if > that's how the WG decided to go. The same semantics can be expressed using different syntactic constructs. I am following the Haskell style, in which brackets and arguments are omitted, if possible. This results in a considerably more compact and readable expressions. For example, which of the two function definitions is more readable and understandable: sumProducts($seq) = sum(map(product(), $seq)) or sumProduct = sum . (map product) > The last time it was debated, we decided > not to go there (Query folks are very attached to their FLWR expressions and > regard this construct as redundant): but a good argument would still receive > a hearing. It seems that the balance is unproportionally shifted towards the Query folks. Why should this be so? Why it would not be the other way around: "The last time it was debated, we decided not to go there (XSLT folks are very attached to their higher-order functions and regard "the XXX construct" as redundant): but a good argument would still receive a hearing." Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re:, Jeni Tennison | Thread | [xsl] Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re:, Dimitre Novatchev |
Re: [xsl] xsl architecture issue, Mattias Konradsson | Date | RE: [xsl] passing parameters to a X, Andrew Welch |
Month |