Re: [xsl] Stumped: XSL 1.0 recursive template

[Brandon Ibach <brandon.ibach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:31 AM, daniel whitney <dbf.whitney@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for the response Brandon. But I'm still having problems
> understanding what's happening here. With the example I provided the
> attribute values I am comparing are:
> 60, 60.09, 60.09, 60.09, 80.
>
> The comparisons being returned are:
> False, True, True, True. It's the last test evaluating to True that
> confuses me. Why when I'm on the last desc value of 60.09 and the
> following-sibling value is 80 (which is the last RECORDSECTION in the
> transform) does it evaluate to TRUE? As a test I changed all the desc
> values so that they were unique. I ran the transform and every test
> came back True except for the first one.

There is an additional wrinkle in your original code that I didn't
catch the first time through, but which you essentially caught when
you added the "[1]" to the expression for fincodeParam on the
recursive call.  Using a notation of "@60" for an attribute node with
value "60" and "RS[60]" for a RECORDSECTION element node with a "desc"
attribute with a value of "60", the calls to financialTemp look like
this:

    fincodeParam=@60   nextRecordParam=(RS[60.09], RS[60.09], RS[60.09], RS[80])
        fincodeParam=(@60.09, @60.09, @60.09, @80)
nextRecordParam=(RS[60.09], RS[60.09], RS[80])
            fincodeParam=(@60.09, @60.09, @80)
nextRecordParam=(RS[60.09], RS[80])
                fincodeParam=(@60.09, @80)   nextRecordParam=(RS[80])
                    fincodeParam=@80   nextRecordParam=()

The last call is a no-op that terminates the recursion.  The first
call gives the "false" response, since the "60" value in fincodeParam
doesn't match any of the @desc values in nextRecordParam.  The next
three all return true if for no other reason than there are "80"
values in both parameters.  By adding the "[1]" into the test, you
only compare with the first @desc value in nextRecordParam.  By
putting "[1]" into the expression for fincodeParam on the recursive
call, the calls look like this:

    fincodeParam=@60   nextRecordParam=(RS[60.09], RS[60.09], RS[60.09], RS[80])
        fincodeParam=@xxxxx   nextRecordParam=(RS[60.09], RS[60.09], RS[80])
            fincodeParam=@xxxxx   nextRecordParam=(RS[60.09], RS[80])
                fincodeParam=@xxxxx   nextRecordParam=(RS[80])
                    fincodeParam=@80   nextRecordParam=()

Hope that clears up what was happening.

-Brandon :)