Subject: [xsl] Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for) From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 06:30:16 -0800 (PST) |
> 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 David, I wish I could, but I'll need help from everybody, especially from people, who are XSLT experts and native English speakers (like you and Jeni). I haven't done this by now, because I somehow have the feeling that such a proposal is pre-determined to fail. I'll never be able to write like Jeni, and even her proposals have mixed chances of success... For a start how do you think a general layout of such proposal should look like? What sections and in what order? Maybe we can start at least working on this section by section? Cheers, Dimitre. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] RE: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re:, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re:, David Carlisle |
[xsl] making grandparents of grandc, Piotr Kopszak | Date | Re: [xsl] The evaluate function, David Carlisle |
Month |