Subject: Re: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional language From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:46:57 +0100 |
Mike Kay wrote > See for example http://www.google.com/search?q=define:functional+language While the two definitions that google turned up showed that functions as first class objects are not necessarily part of the definition they both do suggest that function definition _is_ part of the definition of a functional language. ... "A language that replaces programming steps with function definitions" ... ... "using a functional language, you write functions to describe " ... XPath does not have function definition capability and I think it fails to meet either of these definitions of a functional language. > With Phil Wadler on the working group, we could hardly get away with using > the term in a way that's out of line with accepted definitions. Perhaps he only had his eye on Xquery (or XSLT) which do of course have function definition. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, Andrew Curry | Thread | Re: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, Colin Paul Adams |
Re: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, Andrew Curry | Date | [xsl] Re Numbering, Mark Williams |
Month |