Subject: Re: [xsl] [exsl] Draft 0.1 - call for comments From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:09:57 -0700 |
> > "Issue: RTF error - should generating result nodes be an > > unrecoverable error? " > > > > I like it as you have it now: error or ignore the nodes. > > What do you think about David C.'s suggestion of having RTFs returned > unless there's an exsl:result element in amongst the nodes that are > generated, in which case the select attribute of the first exsl:result > element is used as the return value? I can't get my head around all the implications right away. My only immediate reaction is that it seems rather contrived. > > "Issue: Type tests - should this specification define functions to > > test the type of values passed as parameters? Several XPath > > functions allow an argument to be either a string or a node set, but > > treating a string as a node set will cause an error and there's no > > way to detect whether a variable value is actually a string or a > > node set." > > > > Oh boy. Pet peeve of mine. I don't think there should be type tests. > > I'm of the strong opinion that it is a mistake that so many > > languages provide special status to data type among factors in > > program correctness. > > But then in a later email it sounded as if you agreed to: > > >> Something like: > >> > >> Function: string exsl:object-type(object) > >> > >> The exsl:object-type function returns a string giving the type of the > >> object passed as the argument. The possible object types are: > >> 'string', 'number', 'boolean', 'node-set' or 'RTF'. > >> > >> [Note: The description would change in version 1.1 (matching XSLT 1.1) > >> to: > >> > >> The exsl:object-type function returns a string giving the type of the > >> object passed as the argument. The possible object types are: > >> 'string', 'number', 'boolean', 'node-set' or 'external'.] > > > > I find this much more compelling than a built-in system of > > typeconstraints. > > Have I interpreted you correctly? You wouldn't object to an > exsl:object-type function? In my first post I think I must have understood. I thought the idea was adding type constraints to parameter specifications, which I still oppose. I don't have a problem with a run-time type identification function. And of course, using this, people who really like strongly-typed systems can have their cake: <exsl:function name='my:func'> <xsl:param name='x'/> <xsl:if test="not (exsl:object-type(x) = 'string')"> <xsl:message terminate='yes'>You punk!</xsl:message> </xsl:if> ... </exsl:function> -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] [exsl] Draft 0.1 - call f, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] [exsl] Draft 0.1 - call f, Uche Ogbuji |
Re: [xsl] divide info in several ou, cutlass | Date | [xsl] selecting only one among many, Zeynep Gunal |
Month |