Subject: Re: [xsl] Maximum recursion depth exceeded From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:38:25 -0700 |
I will not continue this thread further as it goes a little bit off-topic, but: > And a long list of languages, XSLT isn't one of them - I guess since > it can not produce libraries or programs that conform to the CLI specs > - without some helping code around it - that it would not meet this > definition. Do you feel that the list is wrong? The output of XslCompiledTransform can be a dll and this is (certainly) a .NET dll and this is (certainly) a .NET "library of programs". For the people, who might not be aware of this fact, there is even a VS2008 add-in that implements the XSLT project type, allowing the developer to create a project of type XSLT -- bing for "IronXSLT by Oleg Tkachenko" -- Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev --------------------------------------- Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence. --------------------------------------- To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk ------------------------------------- Never fight an inanimate object ------------------------------------- You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what you're doing is work or play On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM, bryan rasmussen<rasmussen.bryan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michael Kay said: > >>> I'm not sure if I would >>> consider an XSLT compiled via XslCompiledTransform B to be a >>> '.NET language' (I believe I used the example of C#) , I >>> haven't really thought about it though - would you say it is? >> >> You're the one who introduced the term, Bryan, I think it's up to you either >> to explain to the rest of us what you meant by it, or to admit that it's >> meaningless. > > Ok, I guess what I meant by .NET languages was a language that > specifically had a compiler for the CLR > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Runtime > which I thought was commonly understood by the term .NET language, > even by people who don't work using .NET. That it can be used to build > libraries that can be used by other .NET languages, for example by > compiling to a DLL. > > Sure XslCompiledTransform compiles down to MSIL > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163554.aspx but it doesn't > interact with the other languages in the same way. > > Although if I go to Wikipedia again > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET_Languages I get: > > "CLI Languages are computer programming languages that are used to > produce libraries and programs that conform to the Common Language > Infrastructure specifications. With some notable exceptions, most CLI > languages compile entirely to the Common Intermediate Language (CIL), > an intermediate language that can be executed using an implementation > of CLI such as the Common Language Runtime, a part of the Microsoft > .NET Framework, Mono, or Portable.NET." > > And a long list of languages, XSLT isn't one of them - I guess since > it can not produce libraries or programs that conform to the CLI specs > - without some helping code around it - that it would not meet this > definition. Do you feel that the list is wrong? > > another set of languages that I would think of as .NET languages would > be those that are supported by the DLR > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Language_Runtime > > or something like this list > http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx B (give or take some > languages) > > > So as to whether or not it is meaningless - maybe it is because it has > a sort of wide coverage, but it does seem to be a term that is used > relatively frequently. > > ---- > > Dmitre said: > >>I don't know what is your definition for a ".NET Language". > > See above > >>XslCompiledTransform is the latest .NET implementation of the XSLT 1.0 >>language. Whether XslCompiledTransform or F# are written in C# (or >>VB.NET or any other language supported by the platform) has nothing to >>do with the fact that they are language implementations officially >>provided by .NET > > I just wanted to note that F# is a language like C# and VB.NET whereas > XslCompiledTransform is a class allowing you to use XSLT. I'm pretty > sure you know this but you imply that it is coequal to > XslCompiledTransform - do you, if so why? Not being snarky, since I > respect you quite a bit I suppose you might well have a viewpoint on > the matter that would be different than mine and if so you would like > to expand on that viewpoint. > >>> but >>> it is annoying when I know I have a function that is properly tail >>> recursive and it overflows anyway...(This would be a C# problem, not >>> XSLT in System.XML.XSL) > >>This would be XSLT implementation problem (nothing to do with >>recursion in C#), > > Well, I guess I have really atrocious communication skills but I was > making a comment there about what I thought were commonly understood > as .NET languages (as per the discussion above as to what I mean B by > that) and I wasn't talking about XSLT or compiling an XSLT I was > talking about that in C# a properly tail recursive function - written > in C# - will have a stack overflow sooner or later and I made the > offhand remark that of the languages that I thought of as .NET > languages - C#, VB.NET, JScript.NET, B F#, Managed C++ being the ones > that pop into the head immediately as belonging to this set although > there are obviously others the only one I know of that supports > compiler optimization of tail recursion is F#. Probably if I took the > time to look at languages that use the DLR I might find the story to > be far different. > > I probably shouldn't have made that rather lighthearted and offhanded > comment mainly because it was somewhat off-topic as well, and since > the topic is supposed to be XSLT I suppose I can understand you > thinking I was saying that tail recursion (or any recursion) doesn't > work in XSLT for .NET, obviously it does. Any implementation where it > didn't work would be so broken as to be completely useless. > > > Best Regards, > Bryan Rasmussen
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Maximum recursion depth e, bryan rasmussen | Thread | Re: [xsl] Maximum recursion depth e, bryan rasmussen |
Re: [xsl] Maximum recursion depth e, bryan rasmussen | Date | Re: [xsl] Maximum recursion depth e, bryan rasmussen |
Month |