|
Subject: Re: [xsl] Transitive closure for XPath From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:42:36 +0100 |
[Sorry about the delayed response]
Michael Kay wrote:
>
> > So we would still have a closure() function but have a notation for
> > delayed evaluation:
> >
> > closure(/closure/node[1], delay::key("myKey", @child))
> >
>
> The concept you are looking for is "higher-order functions", available in
> many functional programming languages. The concept is consistent with the
> XPath conceptual model, but disagreeable to those who want the language to
> stop short of being a general purpose programming language.
>
I don't want to see XSLT becoming a general purpose programming language
but I would like to see it become an exceedingly good XML transformation
language.
Closure looks to me very like a solution to the "parts explosion"
problem in SQL - did support for this ever reach one of the SQL
standards?
It seems to be a wide and relevent requirement for a language
specialised to manipulating a specific type of data structure.
Francis.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| Re: [xsl] Transitive closure for XP, Christian Nentwich | Thread | AW: AW: [xsl] for-each with include, Machelett, Renato |
| [xsl] more XSLTUK01 photos, Oliver Becker | Date | Re: [xsl] for-each question, Ronald |
| Month |