Subject: Re: [xsl] Transitive closure for XPath From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:42:36 +0100 |
[Sorry about the delayed response] Michael Kay wrote: > > > So we would still have a closure() function but have a notation for > > delayed evaluation: > > > > closure(/closure/node[1], delay::key("myKey", @child)) > > > > The concept you are looking for is "higher-order functions", available in > many functional programming languages. The concept is consistent with the > XPath conceptual model, but disagreeable to those who want the language to > stop short of being a general purpose programming language. > I don't want to see XSLT becoming a general purpose programming language but I would like to see it become an exceedingly good XML transformation language. Closure looks to me very like a solution to the "parts explosion" problem in SQL - did support for this ever reach one of the SQL standards? It seems to be a wide and relevent requirement for a language specialised to manipulating a specific type of data structure. Francis. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Transitive closure for XP, Christian Nentwich | Thread | AW: AW: [xsl] for-each with include, Machelett, Renato |
[xsl] more XSLTUK01 photos, Oliver Becker | Date | Re: [xsl] for-each question, Ronald |
Month |