|
Subject: Re: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional language From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 30 Mar 2004 17:43:35 +0100 |
>>>>> "David" == M David Peterson <m.david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
David> You know, with as much time as I spend writing C# and
David> ASP.NET you would think I wouldn't have asked that
David> question. Oops :)
David> I believe the suggested replacement to the statement is
David> still a valid statement although the fact that XPath has
David> found its way into many languages that have built in XML
David> parsing and transformation does make Colin's point a bit
David> more interesting.
I fail to see the relevance.
Whether or not the host language is functional, XPath is not.
And I don't see the point of saying it is.
--
Colin Paul Adams
Preston Lancashire
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| RE: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, M. David Peterson | Thread | Re: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, David Carlisle |
| RE: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, M. David Peterson | Date | RE: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional, Elliotte Rusty Harol |
| Month |