Subject: Re: [xsl] RE: Designs for XSLT functions From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:42:18 -0700 |
> > > > I think clearly separating the specification of the abilities: > > > > > > > > -> to statically define and statically > > > > invoke functions in XSLT, and > > > > > > > > -> to dynamically invoke functions > > I don't see any need for special syntax to invoke functions whose name is > decided at run-time. That can easily be done using a general-purpose > evaluate() extension that constructs XPath expressions from strings. I do see the need. First of all, exsl:call() would be more efficient than exsl:evaluate() in any implementation scenario I can readily imagine. The former simply expands the name and looks up in a symbol table. The latter involves full LR(k) parsing, with lexing. Also, there is the special ability Jeni and I have suggested for exsl:call to permit named parameters, which I think is very useful. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] RE: Designs for XSLT function, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Steve Muench |
Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Uche Ogbuji | Date | [xsl] Common Extension Process (was, Uche Ogbuji |
Month |