Re: [xsl] Better include them in the XSLT 2.0 spec (Was: Re: [xsl] Time for an exslt for 2.0?)

[Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 May 2005 09:42:53 +0100, Colin Paul Adams
<colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> "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?

No.

> Or to change the
> semantics of functions that call xsl:element, for instance?

No, none of these

> Surely you
> can't expect the WG to agree to such a substantial change at this late
stage?

Please, read what I wrote -- it was said clearly.


>
> Or are you requesting banning non-pure functions altogether?

I was talking not about "functions" but about xsl:function

Does it make a difference now?


Cheers,
Dimitre