Subject: Re: [xsl] Complex recursion in XSLT 1.0 From: Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:59:35 +0100 (CET) |
Michael Kay wrote: Hi > One very minor observation: I think (though I would need > to verify by testing) that in Saxon this might perform > better if you added elements at the end rather than the > start. In particular, this might allow the "new" stack to > share underlying space with the "old" stack in many cases, > and to avoid physical copying. Very interesting. I put the new element at the front, actually because I thought it would avoid some copies... I don't explicitely know why, I guess that comes from the Lisp's cell model? And if I remember well, sequences in Saxon are represented by iterators (so one knows the front directly, not the end). What should be the real Java object underlying the sequence at the very end (the object that would require copy)? > (I seem to be unusual in that I think of the top of the > stack as being at the high-address end. Comes from years > of exposure to a hardware architecture that worked that > way.) Doesn't seem unusual if you only think of a stack as a "thing" you can apply pop, top and push to, with a few relations between the state of the "thing" and those functions :-) Regards, --drkm _____________________________________________________________________________ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] RE : Re: [xsl] Complex re, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] Complex recursion in XSLT, Manfred Staudinger |
RE: [xsl] RE : Re: [xsl] Complex re, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] Is an XPath processor res, Andrew Welch |
Month |