Subject: Re: [exsl] Naming exsl:return/exsl:result (Was: Re: [xsl] Functional programming in XSLT) From: "Lassi A. Tuura" <lat@xxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:15:25 +0100 |
> I think we need an imperative term that doesn't imply that the > function terminates. exsl:result-value? exsl:result-part? (But then somebody already objected to return-value...) I must have missed a part of the discussion -- was there a feeling that it would be inappropriate to overload xsl:value-of? When the RTF concept is removed, would it not be possible to say that xsl:value-of just returns the original node set instead of a copy? It would then be possible for templates (or exsl:functions) to return references to the original node sets, and xsl:value-of would IMHO be a natural choice for this return value issue. I suppose xsl:value-of returning references instead of a copy might create no end of confusion, but I can't think any such context now. Anybody else? //lat -- Never be ashamed to own you have been wrong, 'tis but saying you are wiser today than you were yesterday. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [exsl] Naming exsl:return/exsl:, Trevor Nash | Thread | Re: [exsl] Naming exsl:return/exsl:, Lassi A. Tuura |
RE: [xsl] How can I test if element, Xu, Xiaocun | Date | Re: [xsl] passing parameters to jav, Robert Koberg |
Month |