Subject: [xsl] Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for) From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:39:15 -0800 (PST) |
Joerg Pietschmann <joerg dot pietschmann at zkb dot ch> wrote: [snip] > This means you want lambda expressions. > > > - define a map expression (rather than a map() function) > > Note that in you proposal of a mapping operator > $coordinates -> (. * 2) > the second operand actually *is* already a lambda expression. Hint: > the . is not bound to the value of the context node as it would > have been in ordinary expressions. > We can argue about inventing an XPath function xf:lambda() for this > purpose, with all the consequences. I'd probably like it to have one, > but i let it to Dmitre to make up the full proposal... :-) I already noticed that Jeni's "mapping operator" is in fact lambda expression. However, why make a special proposal for lambda expressions. The surprisingly energetic response indicates that what people want (and nobody stood against this) is support for higher-order functions in XPath 2.0. Having higher-order functions in place, anonymous functions (lambda expressions) will naturally come as an added benefit or just as a convenient shorthand. Cheers, Dimitre. __________________________________________________ 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 -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] RE: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . i, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re:, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] Problems to interpret an , Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: [xsl] use cases for d-o-e, David Carlisle |
Month |