Subject: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:38:40 GMT |
> Calling a template from a function within an XPath expression is not a good > idea. It's important that functions should have no side-effects, and > templates normally have the side-effect of writing to the result tree. > That's why I made saxon:function a distinct construct from xsl:template. probably it needs to be a different construct anyway so you can more naturally have positional arguments and return values other than node sets. However If you did try to merge with named templates I wouldn't have thought the above would be a problem, as I'd have expected foo:named-template-as-function() to act like $x where x is some internal hidden variable, essentially set by <xsl:variable name="x"> <xsl:call-template name="foo:named-template-as-template"> ..... David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] portability, correctness , Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] XSLT 1.1 comments (portab, David Carlisle |
Month |