Re: [xsl] Re: Re: Assignment no, dynamic scoping si (was: Re: RE: Wishes for XSL revisions ...

[Gunther Schadow <gunther@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the lead, Evan.

Evan Lenz wrote:
> Although the XSL WG hasn't discussed this issue as such, there was a
> proposal[1] (on the ides of March) which asked for much the same thing that
> you want. I think. It's framed as "syntax sugar", but it's obviously more
> than that. Can you tell me how close this proposal is to what you're
> proposing (modulo syntax)? (See below.)

Miloslav's proposal appears to be different. I'm not sure
I interpret it right, but it seems he basically wants the
<propagate-params/> element as an abbreviation of the
multiple <with-param ...> elements in the apply/call
template(s) element.

While Miloslav's proposal may arise from a very similar
motivation as mine, it appears to still rely on explicit
parameters and on an uninterrupted chain of explicit
parameter passing. The idea with implicit parameters is
that they are "passed through" intermediary calls that
have no interest in these parameters.

regards
-Gunther


--
Gunther Schadow, M.D., Ph.D.                    gschadow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Medical Information Scientist      Regenstrief Institute for Health Care
Adjunct Assistant Professor        Indiana University School of Medicine
tel:1(317)630-7960                         http://aurora.regenstrief.org



XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list