Re: [xsl] Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for)

[David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>]

  However, why make a special proposal for lambda expressions. The surprisingly
  energetic response indicates that what people want (and nobody stood against this)
  is support for higher-order functions in XPath 2.0. Having higher-order functions in
  place, anonymous functions (lambda expressions) will naturally come as an added
  benefit or just as a convenient shorthand. 




Dimitre please post that www-xpath-comments arguing for higher order
functions now rather than Xpath5 (I suspect most of the Xquery side
of the working group won't see arguments on this list, and they're the
ones you have to convince I suspect)

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

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