RE: Can solve the N-queens - but can't count!

[Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus <Scott_Boag/CAM/Lotus@xxxxxxxxx>]

The reasoning is so the templates can be processed as fragments, for
applications like XML editors where an edit occurs and only part of the
document needs to be updated.  There are already several features (params,
modes, etc.) that make this hard, but we think it is still feasible.

Though it is fun to do things like N-Queens in XSLT, it's not really the
design center for the language.  Once you add for and while loops and
mutable variables, you almost might as well use JavaScript or perl or the
like.  If we loose the ability for tools like editors to do fragment
display, we have greatly diminished the uniqueness and viability of the
language, in my opinion.

Scott Boag
Advanced Technology Group
Lotus Development Corporation
617-693-5295



                                                                                                           
                    Kay Michael                                                                            
                    <Michael.Kay@xxxxxxx>        To:     "'xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"                     
                    Sent by:                     <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>                               
                    owner-xsl-list@mulber        cc:     (bcc: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus)                       
                    rytech.com                   Subject:     RE: Can solve the N-queens - but can't       
                                                 count!                                                    
                                                                                                           
                    06/16/99 01:27 PM                                                                      
                    Please respond to                                                                      
                    xsl-list                                                                               
                                                                                                           
                                                                                                           



> Mike Kay wrote:
> > I think it would be useful to the debate if someone could
> articulate the reasons why stylesheets should be side-effect-free.
>
To which David Rosenborg responded:

> Here are two reasons from which we have practical experience:
> lazy evaluation and
> implicit multithreading. In general the draft does not say
> anything about the order in which things are processed.
>

I had a kind of feeling that the responses were going to be along the line
"if we restrict what the user can do then we can have much more fun as
implementors". Show me a user benefit!

Mike


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list





 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list