Subject: RE: [xsl] Esoteric XSLT/FXSL question From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:30:29 +0100 |
> Now, the FP alphabet of functions includes as its signature > functions, "map", "fold" (aka "reduce") and so on. > > However "so on" rarely includes "foreach" as a signature > function of the FP idiom. Is this because "foreach" implies > some kind of time ordered calculation, and therefore not optimizable? xsl:for-each is essentially a map() or apply() function. More specifically <xsl:for-each select="S"> <instructions/> </xsl:for-each> is equivalent to the higher-order function call map(S, instructions) where "instructions" is interpreted as a function applied to the context node. The use of the English words "for each" is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it makes your typical user less uncomfortable than if it were named xsl:map. On the other hand, it gives people the wrong impression that it is procedural. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Esoteric XSLT/FXSL questi, Colin Adams | Thread | [xsl] [xsl 2.0] counting the nodes , Keith Gilbert |
Re: [xsl] Esoteric XSLT/FXSL questi, Colin Adams | Date | Re: [xsl] fo:instream-foreign-objec, J.Pietschmann |
Month |