Subject: Re: [xsl] flatened hiearchies for xslt2 From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:23:22 -0800 |
> unless Saxon performs some smart optimization. What do you think ?
even if you don't use a key saxon (perhaps just in the -sa version, I can't remember) may decide you use some //foo[@x='aa'] idiom often enough to internally use a key anyway. I tend to think of for-each group as a sane syntax added at xslt2 for the muenchian grouping idiom that Dimitre showed, which works well, but only looks normal as its posted once a week for over half a decade to this list:-). No idea if the internal implementations are similar though but that's processor specific detail...
. Completely agree with David.
Not speaking about performance but about *style* and expressiveness, there are some interesting things to note:
2. No need to pass parameters using the "keys" approach-- most of the work is being done as one atomic operation -- the one-time creation of the index
3. Some purists will comment that <for-each-group/> supports the "more imperative-like", "pull" style of using <xsl:for-each/> as contrasted with the more general and flexible push-style <xsl:apply-templates/>
Threfore, one might conclude that the "keys" approach can be implemented in a more compact and flexible way and the resulting implementations can be more maintainable.
-- Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev --------------------------------------- Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence. --------------------------------------- To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk ------------------------------------- You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what you're doing is work or play
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] flatened hiearchies for x, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] flatened hiearchies for x, ac |
Re: [xsl] flatened hiearchies for x, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] Transforming a non-hierar, SEXpeare |
Month |