Subject: Re: [xsl] Better include them in the XSLT 2.0 spec (Was: Re: [xsl] Time for an exslt for 2.0?) From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 19:49:15 +1000 |
On 13 May 2005 09:42:53 +0100, Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> "Dimitre" == Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Dimitre> This is the problem it shouldn't, according to the XSLT > Dimitre> 2.0 spec: there are cases when my:f($x) is my:f($x) > > Dimitre> evaluates to false(). > > Dimitre> This happens when my:f() is defined in such a way that it > Dimitre> creates new node(s) on every evaluation. > > Oh dear. Yes, of course. > Which is why you would like a memoization attribute within the spec? > To clearly mark those functions which are not pure? No. > Or to change the > semantics of functions that call xsl:element, for instance? No, none of these > Surely you > can't expect the WG to agree to such a substantial change at this late stage? Please, read what I wrote -- it was said clearly. > > Or are you requesting banning non-pure functions altogether? I was talking not about "functions" but about xsl:function Does it make a difference now? Cheers, Dimitre
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Colin Paul Adams |
Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Colin Paul Adams |
Month |