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 11:00:53 +0100 |
>>>>> "Colin" == Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>> "Colin" == Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>> "Dimitre" == Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Dimitre> I was talking not about "functions" but about Dimitre> xsl:function Dimitre> Does it make a difference now? Colin> I don't see it. You originally said: Colin> "xsl:function -s with side effects should not have been Colin> allowed -- in the first place." Colin> But that is not sufficient to guarentee that f($x) is f($x) Colin> always returns true(). Colin> Oh yes it is! Oh no it isn't! I've degenerated into pantomime. I shall now go for a walk, until my head is clear. -- 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, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Colin Paul Adams | Date | Re: [xsl] Refactoring parsing code , Dimitre Novatchev |
Month |