Subject: Re: [xsl] Complex recursion in XSLT 1.0 From: "Manfred Staudinger" <manfred.staudinger@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:09:51 +0100 |
On 21/02/2008, Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't understand. By LILO I assume a queue and by LIFO a stack. No, both are meant to be stacks. If you go up a few lines in my post, you'll see it: > Very interesting indeed. Does this mean also that a LILO (last-in > becomes last-out) stack is to be preferred against LIFO (last-in > becomes first-out) ... You can apply pop, top and push and still implement both types of a stack. It would depend on your application which one you want. I became accustomed to this terminology some time ago. Manfred On 21/02/2008, Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Manfred Staudinger wrote: > > > > On 21/02/2008, Florent Georges wrote: > > > > And if I remember well, sequences in Saxon are represented > > > by iterators (so one knows the front directly, not the end). > > > ... because it seems rather difficult to make LIFO symmetric > > in terms of performance to the LILO stack at the level of XSLT. > > > I don't understand. By LILO I assume a queue and by LIFO a stack. > > > --drkm
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Complex recursion in XSLT, Florent Georges | Thread | Re: [xsl] Complex recursion in XSLT, Florent Georges |
RE: [xsl] Variables and more than o, Houghton,Andrew | Date | Re: [xsl] Complex recursion in XSLT, Florent Georges |
Month |