Subject: RE: Case of function names (Was: Re: [xsl] comments on December F&O draft) From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:28:58 -0000 |
> I believe these should change in any case. (Apart from anything else I > don't see any need for constructors at the user level as I > commented in my original F&O commnets list) > I'm not keen on constructors as currently defined either, but we do need something that says which of the following is a static error and which is a dynamic error: (a) date("2002-01-05$$") (b) date(concat("2002", "-", "01", "-", "05$$")) (c) let $x := "2002" date(concat($x, "-", "01", "-", "05$$")) The main reason for introducing constructors was to provide an equivalent to literals, for those data types that have no native literal syntax in the language. I personally like the idea of using identical syntax for constructors and for conversion functions, so long as we can get the error-handling right. I'd also like to allow an XPath processor to reject any of the above statically, which might mean we have to introduce some implementation-dependence: "if the values of the arguments to a function call are known statically (whether or not they are expressed as literals), then an XPath processor *may* evaluate the result of the function statically, and *may* report any error that results from evaluating the function as a static error". In the case of functions classified as constructors, with literal arguments, that *may* is currently a *must". Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Case of function names (Was: Re, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: Case of function names (Was: Re, naha |
RE: [xsl] quick table layout proble, Jarno . Elovirta | Date | Re: Regular expression functions (W, David Carlisle |
Month |