Re: [xsl] function returning string with string-join()

[Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>]

  concat('NO', ('x',$input)[($input = (1,2)) +1], '.html')


--
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



On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:37 AM, ac <ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would have done this one simply as
> ...
> <xsl:sequence select="string-join (('NO', if (string($input)) then
string($input) else 'x', ',html'), '')"/>
> ...
> with the feeling that string-join() is typically faster than concat() and
string() faster than set operation with predicates, and that the overall
instruction is easier to read and understand
>
> Am I right?
>
> Cheers,
> ac
>
>
>
>
>> Am 06.08.2010 um 11:15 schrieb Andrew Welch:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> When returning atomics (such as xs:string) you should use xs:sequence
>>> and not xsl:value-of, as value-of will create a text node that then
>>> gets "atomized" to an atomic.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for that reminder... xsl:for-each-group and regular expressions are
well settled in my XSLT2 mind-set, but xsl:sequence is more or less ignored.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If you didnt have the xsl:message call you could do:
>>>
>>> B  B <xsl:function name="my:filename" as="xs:string">
>>> B  B  B  B <xsl:param name="input" as="xs:integer" />
>>> B  B  B  B <xsl:sequence select="concat(if ($input = (1,2)) then ('NO1',
>>> 'NO2')[$input] else 'NOx', '.html')"/>
>>> B  B </xsl:function>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, if...
>>
>> I still try to find the best balance between writing some complex, possibly
hard to debug multi-line XPath expressions or a tree of XSLT elements. Haven't
found a general rule for that, and maybe there isn't.
>>
>> Thanks a lot,
>>
>> - Michael