Re: [xsl] v4 mode

["Graydon graydon@xxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:47:17AM -0000, Michael Kay michaelkay90@xxxxxxxxx scripsit:
> > On 24 Jan 2025, at 11:02, Graydon graydon@xxxxxxxxx <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Under what circumstances would we want a built-in funtion (necessarily
> > statically provided with a mode, presumably one of #all, #default, or
> > #unnamed) not work sometimes?
> 
> Sorry, I don't think I understand the question. This about user-defined functions scoped to a user-defined named mode.

It's quite possible I don't understand the proposal. I took it as
"functions have modes"; if a function's scope includes mode, it seemed
like there would be circumstances where any function could be out of
scope because of its mode.

-- Graydon