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 09:53:14 +0100 |
>>>>> "Colin" == Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Colin> Or are you requesting banning non-pure functions Colin> altogether? This would mean disallowing calls to extension Colin> functions, or else insisting extension functions must not Colin> have side-effects. The latter condition would be Colin> incompatible with XSLT 1.0, I think Actually, it's far worse than that - functions such as last() are not referentially transparent, so you can't have referential transparency. Given that, would there be any advantage to having f($x) is f($x) always returning true()? -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Colin Paul Adams | Thread | Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Colin Paul Adams | Date | Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, David Carlisle |
Month |