Re: [xsl] RE: Is xsl:for-each "syntactic sugar"?

[Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> In the book, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs by Abelson,
Sussman, and Sussman, the authors assert that looping constructs (such as
xsl:for-each) are syntactic sugar:
>

Every programming language construct is "syntax sugar" around a given
set of machine instructions.


--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play



>> B One reason that the distinction between process and procedure
>> B may be confusing is that most implementations of common languages
>> B (including Java, C++, and C) are designed in such a way that the
>> B interpretation of any recursive procedure consumes an amount of
>> B memory that grows with the number of procedure calls, even when
>> B the process described is, in principle, iterative. As a consequence,
>> B these languages can describe iterative processes only by resorting
>> B to special-purpose "looping constructs" such as do, repeat, until for,
>> B and while. The implementation of Scheme ... does not share this defect.
>> B It will execute an iterative process in constant space, even if the
>> B iterative process is described by a recursive procedure. An
implementation
>> B with this property is called tail-recursive.
>
> /Roger