Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for) From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:03:26 GMT |
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. Dimitre please post that www-xpath-comments arguing for higher order functions now rather than Xpath5 (I suspect most of the Xquery side of the working group won't see arguments on this list, and they're the ones you have to convince I suspect) David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. 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 | [xsl] Re: Crossposting (Was: Re: Ca, Dimitre Novatchev |
Re: Regular expression functions (W, Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: [xsl] Content constructors and , Jeni Tennison |
Month |