Subject: RE: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template From: "Michael Kay" <mhkay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:44:04 -0000 |
> Couldn't agree more strongly. Thinking about Uche's comments on > run-time dynamism and introspection yesterday (I don't > know what that > means but it sure sounds good) another option would be > single new XSLT function: > >> > >> call-template('my:func', 'one', xpath, > >> 'two', $rtf) > >> Calling a template from a function within an XPath expression is not a good idea. It's important that functions should have no side-effects, and templates normally have the side-effect of writing to the result tree. That's why I made saxon:function a distinct construct from xsl:template. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, David Carlisle |
RE: [xsl] Re: [ANNOUNCE] XSLT-proce, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] Converting &, >, <, ", an, Mike Brown |
Month |