Subject: Re: [xsl] Better include them in the XSLT 2.0 spec (Was: Re: [xsl] Time for an exslt for 2.0?) From: Brian Chrisman <incubus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:22:04 -0700 |
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 07:49:58AM +1000, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: > > The debate with memo-function would be about whether it actually has any > > semantics, or is merely a performance hint. Could a conformant processor > > ignore it? What is the effect on a "creative" function, one that constructs > > new nodes each time it is called? > > xsl:function -s with side effects should not have been allowed -- in > the first place. > > So it is not only a nice wish to think about memoisation, but probably > a pressing need to clean up the spec from functions with side > effects. > > Or be prepared for all kinds of a nasty surprise following the fact > that the value of > > my:f($x) is my:f($x) > > is generally not guaranteed to be true() Is there some other mechanism which would be used to, for example, return a random number, other than a function? > > > > Cheers, > Dimitre Novatchev.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Better include them in th, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Dimitre Novatchev |
RE: [xsl] Preserve Whitespace with , Michael Kay | Date | [xsl] How to select a node with par, chris |
Month |