Subject: Re: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional language From: Robert Koberg <rob@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:35:48 -0800 |
Colin,
I can appreciate your point regarding the true nature of XPath. It is a valid point. However, the true "functionality" of XPath can only be seen when it is used in conjunction with two languages that are true functional languages, XQuery and XSLT. With this point in mind I can easily see how someone could phrase XPath as functional simply because it is a crucial member of the functionality of these two languages. Without XPath there is no XQuery or XSLT and vice versa.
I don't know of any other technology that is using XPath at the core of its functionality. Therefore I don't know if this argument is true for every instance of XPath implementation. Anyone know of another implementation that would not be considered a functional language?
As to your point regarding taking the statement out of the draft... Why not refocus it a bit to state something more on the lines of "XPath is at the core center of XSLT and XQuery, two XML-based functional languages." I believe a statement along these lines could satisfy both the technical definition while keeping intact the idea that XPath is a crucial member of the XML-based functional languages.
Best regards,
<M:D/>
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, M. David Peterson | Thread | RE: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, M. David Peterson |
RE: [xsl] template matching, passin, M. David Peterson | Date | Re: [xsl] Sorting order, Wendell Piez |
Month |