Subject: Re: [xsl] Better include them in the XSLT 2.0 spec (Was: Re: [xsl] Time for an exslt for 2.0?) From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 13 May 2005 09:42:53 +0100 |
>>>>> "Dimitre" == Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Dimitre> This is the problem it shouldn't, according to the XSLT Dimitre> 2.0 spec: there are cases when my:f($x) is my:f($x) Dimitre> evaluates to false(). Dimitre> This happens when my:f() is defined in such a way that it Dimitre> creates new node(s) on every evaluation. Oh dear. Yes, of course. Which is why you would like a memoization attribute within the spec? To clearly mark those functions which are not pure? Or to change the semantics of functions that call xsl:element, for instance? Surely you can't expect the WG to agree to such a substantial change at this late stage? Or are you requesting banning non-pure functions altogether? This would mean disallowing calls to extension functions, or else insisting extension functions must not have side-effects. The latter condition would be incompatible with XSLT 1.0, I think -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Colin Paul Adams |
Re: [xsl] Using <xsl:for-each> and , David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Colin Paul Adams |
Month |