|
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 |