Subject: Re: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional language From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 30 Mar 2004 17:43:35 +0100 |
>>>>> "David" == M David Peterson <m.david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: David> You know, with as much time as I spend writing C# and David> ASP.NET you would think I wouldn't have asked that David> question. Oops :) David> I believe the suggested replacement to the statement is David> still a valid statement although the fact that XPath has David> found its way into many languages that have built in XML David> parsing and transformation does make Colin's point a bit David> more interesting. I fail to see the relevance. Whether or not the host language is functional, XPath is not. And I don't see the point of saying it is. -- Colin Paul Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, M. David Peterson | Thread | Re: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, David Carlisle |
RE: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, M. David Peterson | Date | RE: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, Elliotte Rusty Harol |
Month |