Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: topological sort From: Bill Keese <billk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:31:04 +0900 |
Hmm, interesting. I guess that both approaches are based on the idea of "levels", where level 1 = nodes w/no dependencies level 2 = nodes that depend on level 1 (only) level 3 = nodes that depend on level 2 (and maybe also level 1) level 4 = nodes that depend on level 3 (and maybe also levels 1 or 2) With the solution I suggested I think you could get a stable sort by specifying a secondary sort key on position(). Bill Dimitre Novatchev wrote: >See also: > > http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/xsl-list/955081 > >and > > http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/xsl-list/956248 > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Re: topological sort, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | RE: [xsl] topological sort, Michael Kay |
[xsl] evaluate a interview, Markus Hanel | Date | RE: [xsl] topological sort, Michael Kay |
Month |