Subject: [xsl] RE: Re: . in for From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 12:03:31 -0800 (PST) |
Mike wrote: > Dimitre wrote: > > While your mapping operator will perform a series of > > mappings, each producing an > > intermediate sequence and may require too much memory, the > > last function applies the > > map function only once. The composition of all functions is > > applied on every element > > of $sequence and the resulting sequence is produced. No > > additional memory for > > intermediate sequences is necessary. > > > > This shows that it is better to have a map() function and a > > composition operator for > > expressions (in case XPath 2.0 will not fully support > > higher-order functions). > > > As a point of information, the implementation of "for" expressions in Saxon > 7.0 is fully pipelined, so there will never be a need to store intermediate > sequences in memory. We were discussing with Jeni the problem for optimisation if certain functions like position() (or any other function, including user-defined ones, that uses the result of the inner for as a sequence) are used in an outer 'for' and the inner 'for' decreases the cardinality of its sequence by producing one or more empty sequences (). This is fully described in: http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/xsl-list/968103 It is interesting to hear your solution -- where were Jeni and I wrong? Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev. __________________________________________________ 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 -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] RE: Higher-order function sup, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | Re: [xsl] RE: Re: . in for, Jeni Tennison |
RE: [xsl] XSLT/XPath 2.0: a USEFUL , Michael Kay | Date | RE: XPath's role (Was: Re: [xsl] Re, Michael Kay |
Month |