Subject: RE: [xsl] turing complete? From: "Michael Kay" <mhkay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:07:40 +0100 |
> Someone recently caught me off gaurd asking if XSLT is turing > complete. > > But I am still wondering why this is even important. How would you > answer the question "Is XSLT turing complete"? Yes, XSLT is Turing complete. I seem to recall someone providing a trivial proof of that on this list. The question is important because of its consequences. For example, it means it is possible to write stylesheets that loop indefinitely, and that it is sometimes impossible to detect such stylesheets by static analysis. It also means that anyone who tells you that they are using Javascript because "XSLT cannot do xxx" is wrong (though they might be correct if they argued instead that "XSLT can't do xxx easily/efficiently). Incidentally, SQL in its original form is not Turing-complete, and although you can easily write an SQL SELECT statement that takes months to execute, you can't write one that loops indefinitely. Mike Kay Software AG XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] turing complete?, Dan Diebolt | Thread | AW: [xsl] href attributes, Sebastian Schirmer |
[xsl] Positioning tables and figure, dvdb-rju | Date | RE: [xsl] variables, Michael Kay |
Month |