Subject: [xsl] Re: Re: Reference to variable cannot be resolved. From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 21:22:37 +0100 |
"David Carlisle" <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:200302141952.TAA10657@xxxxxxxx > > > What the WD specifies is two or more x-s with exactly the same scope. > not _exactly_ the same as the second isn't in the scope of the first. > I agree it looks worse because there isn't an explicit scope marking > but xsl:variable is really just (let ...) with an implicit end of scope > ) inserted at the end of the parent element, isn't it? > > > I agree to xsl:variables with the same name that are siblings are > probably a user error, but in stopping that xslt1 also stopped > rebinding inside explicit nested element scope as well, > > But I think basically we are saying the same thing (just making it look > like an argument to make it interesting) We understand what the other is saying and probably agree. Probably this is just a matter of taste. However, my original question (to the WG) remains unanswered: "Why should a language support a practice that (it says) must be discouraged?" > > > I think the biggest problem here is that the scope of a variable is no > > longer obvious in these cases. ===== Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev. http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Re: Reference to variable, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: [xsl] Re: Reference to variable, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] Process some elements, bu, Ted Stresen-Reuter | Date | Re: xslt core and intuition was RE:, Mike Brown |
Month |