Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: . in for From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:08:32 -0800 (PST) |
Hi Jeni, > > I imagine that a processor would be able to spot situations where the > position() or last() function had been called and only compose the > steps that were composable. > It seems to me obviously not so -- I mean the general task of spotting ***any*** function in the expression, that could reference not only the specific item in the sequence. This includes any user-defined functions. This leads us to the great topic of type-checking and why it is necessary... In case there isn't strong type-checking such re-writing/optimisations are impossible in the general case. Cheers, Dimitre. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Re: . in for, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: . in for, Jeni Tennison |
Re: XPath's role (Was: Re: [xsl] Re, Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: [xsl] ANN: An Introduction to X, Yvon Thoraval |
Month |