Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: . in for From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:20:30 +0000 |
Hi Dimitre, >> I imagine that a processor would be able to spot situations where >> the position() or last() function had been called and only compose >> the steps that were composable. > > It seems to me obviously not so -- I mean the general task of > spotting ***any*** function in the expression, that could reference > not only the specific item in the sequence. This includes any > user-defined functions. Yes, you're right of course - the focus at the point at which the user-defined function is called provides the focus for the body of the function when it's defined by xsl:function, and that will propagate through function (and named template) calls from those functions and so on, making it impractical for the processor to spot. I do think that the position of an item in a sequence is going to be an important piece of information, particularly because items in sequences can't be sequences themselves. Yet another usability/optimisability trade-off I suppose. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Re: . in for, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: . in for, Dimitre Novatchev |
Regular expression functions (Was: , Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: XPath's role (Was: Re: [xsl] Re, Brian Smith |
Month |