RE: [xsl] Re: Re: The Perils of Sudden Type-Safety in XPath 2.0

Subject: RE: [xsl] Re: Re: The Perils of Sudden Type-Safety in XPath 2.0
From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 03:26:34 -0800 (PST)
> >2. What I find ridiculous is not the "new world of XML Schema-typed
> >documents ", but a functional language that will allow the

> ><xsl:variable name="x" select="0"/>
> ><xsl:for-each ...
> >  <xsl:variable name="x" select="$x + 1"/>
>The above does seem messy.
> >or
> >
> ><xsl:variable name="x" select="0"/>

> ><xsl:variable name="x" select="3"/>

> >  <xsl:variable name="x" select="$x + 2"/>
> can you point me to the part in the spec where that is allowed? If
> that's right I'm gonna have to take the day off to go indulge in
> drugs.

The WD Spec contains the first of the above examples. The second was
added by me, because it is perfectly legal now, according to the
current WD Spec.

> >"Thus, the following is not an error, but is discouraged, because
> >effect
> >is probably not what was intended. " ?
> This sounds like a stylistic manuals warning against indulging in 
> slang, because the meaning conveyed is often not the meaning 
> intended. Does xslt 2.0 allow slang?!
> Will great xslt users be able to use these facilities of the new
> language because of a sort of poetic license available to them?

Like you, I hope that somebody will care to answer these questions.


Dimitre Novatchev. -- the home of FXSL

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread