Subject: Re: [xsl] Functional programming in XSLT From: Joe English <jenglish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:32:35 -0800 |
David Rosenborg wrote: > Hi Joe, > > > More over, how do you explain the semantics of saxon:return > > > in terms of the current XSLT processing model? > > saxon:return is, I think, _fairly_ easy to explain in terms of the > > XSLT 1.0 processing model. You just need to augment the the data > > model a bit. > > Well, almost anything could have a simple and natural explanation > if you redefine your universe. This isn't the case for saxon:function / saxon:return though; the only thing you need to add is a new result node type. The rest of XSLT remains the same. > [ re: mutable variables ] > Doable but not sensible. It would pretty effectively prevent > important optimizing methods like, for example, lazy evaluation. I tend to agree. --Joe English jenglish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Functional programming in, Michael Kay | Thread | [xsl] How to test a given node ?, Borca, Olivier |
[xsl] Passing parameters from ASP t, junx | Date | RE: [xsl] Re: XSL-List Digest V3 #6, Michael Fitzgerald |
Month |