Subject: Re: [xsl] [xslt 2.0] Local functions From: Justin Johansson <procode@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:29:21 +0900 |
>Michael Kay: >Generally speaking, I think functions local to a function (or template) are >not an especially good idea ... >Dimitre Novatchev: >As the need for local functions has never been expressed in this list >for a period of 7 years, ... Thanks guys, that was just the informed type of feedback I was seeking. >Michael Kay: > Anonymous functions would be a different question, if we had support for higher-order functions in the language. >Dimitre Novatchev: >Having higher order functions (as provided by FXSL) eliminates the >need for local functions. One can even create functions dynamically >(by composition or by currying). Dimitre, other than by composition or by currying, does FXSL support arbitrary anonymous functions. I've tossed a poor man's lambda into my library which ends up calling saxon:evaluate(). Usage is something like this s:map( s:l( 'some xpath expression which can operate on $p1'), $sequence-of-values-id-like-to-translate-into-something-else) e.g. s:map( s:l( '$p1 * 2"), $x) returns $x with all values in the sequence doubled. Yes, you could do that in FXSL by currying. Justin Johansson Now a Schema-Aware XSLT Evangelist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] [xslt 2.0] Local function, Colin Paul Adams | Thread | Re: [xsl] [xslt 2.0] Local function, Dimitre Novatchev |
RE: [xsl] [xslt 2.0] Local function, Justin Johansson | Date | Re: [xsl] [xslt 2.0] Local function, Justin Johansson |
Month |