Subject: RE: XPath's role (Was: Re: [xsl] Re: . in for) From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:03:07 -0000 |
> > Taking the basic example: > > for $item in $sequence return some:function($item) > > is equivalent to: > > <xsl:function name="my:for"> > <xsl:param name="sequence" type="item*" /> > <xsl:result select="if (empty($sequence)) > then () > else (my:function($sequence[1]), > my:for($sequence[position() > 1]))" /> > </xsl:function> > OK, I'll change the rules. If removing range variables means that to achieve simple things, people have to write recursive functions, then I'd rather keep range variables! Two reasons: Usability and Optimization. You can argue with both, of course, but I think the solutions using range variables are more manageable both for implementors and for users, especially the sort of users who've written a bit of SQL. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XPath's role (Was: Re: [xsl] Re, Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: XPath's role (Was: Re: [xsl] Re, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] Filter nodes by attribute, Joerg Heinicke | Date | RE: [xsl] Query string syntax, Mike Ferrando |
Month |