Subject: Re: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional language From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 30 Mar 2004 14:51:01 +0100 |
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Kay <mhk@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Michael> most of the definitions of the term "functional language" Michael> do not require this concept, and are aligned with the way Michael> the XPath spec uses the term. Michael> See for example Michael> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:functional+language I looked. two definitions, neither of which are satisfied bu XPath. Anyway, this "definition" of a functional language within the XPath draft is not referred to anywhere else, so why not remove the definition and just say that expressions can be nested with full generality? -- Colin Paul Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, M. David Peterson |
Re: AW: AW: AW: [xsl] change a attr, Markus Hanel | Date | Re: [xsl] how to <xsl:apply-templat, James A. Robinson |
Month |