|
Subject: Re: Simplified production for FilterExpr in XPath spec? From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:46:04 -0700 |
----- Original Message -----
From: David Carlisle
>
> > Does anyone know why the production was written the way it
> > was?
>
> Don't you know by now? Iteration is evil, recursion is pure...
Why? ... both are good ... I think apply-templates + sort is not
as readable as for-each + sort ...
Rgds.Paul.
PS. The question is actually very reasonable. The XPath paper
is mixing 2 notations for no reason - plain inconsistency... I'll vote
for regexpr form, btw ... after years of recursion-based yacc,
I'm now enjoying regexpr-based metamata ... I think regexpr-based
is easier to understand... Why you think it is evil ?
[4] Step ::= AxisSpecifier NodeTest Predicate*
| AbbreviatedStep
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| Re: Simplified production for Filte, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: Simplified production for Filte, David Carlisle |
| RE: Simplified production for Filte, Jukka . T . Lehtinen | Date | Re: How to create active hyperlinks, Jeni Tennison |
| Month |