Subject: Re: [xsl] Better include them in the XSLT 2.0 spec (Was: Re: [xsl] Time for an exslt for 2.0?) From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 07:49:58 +1000 |
> The debate with memo-function would be about whether it actually has any > semantics, or is merely a performance hint. Could a conformant processor > ignore it? What is the effect on a "creative" function, one that constructs > new nodes each time it is called? xsl:function -s with side effects should not have been allowed -- in the first place. So it is not only a nice wish to think about memoisation, but probably a pressing need to clean up the spec from functions with side effects. Or be prepared for all kinds of a nasty surprise following the fact that the value of my:f($x) is my:f($x) is generally not guaranteed to be true() Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Better include them in th, Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] Better include them in th, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] Better include them in th, Michael Kay | Date | [xsl] Preserve Whitespace with Mixe, James . Whitehead-1 |
Month |