Shall I conclude that there were no user requirements and
use-cases that required taking this decision?
The argument against allowing redefinition of variables was based on
preventing the novice error of doing
<xsl:variable name="x" select="0"/>
<xsl:for-each ...
<xsl:variable name="x" select="$x + 1"/>
The argument in favour of allowing it was based on the ability to
generate XSLT/XQuery code automatically, and to allow cut-and paste
of
code fragments.
So we owe this feature only due to the inability of someone to think
about unique name generation?
And why should the XQuery people put their hands on XSLT?
So yes, there were use cases on both sides, and it boils down to a
matter of opinion as to how you weigh them.
If you think the decision is wrong, you should post a note to
public-qt-comments saying why.
Yes, I think this decision is wrong, yet I'm not going to post
anything. Obviously these people love to fight and argue -- why make
them happy?
Until I learned about this feature I was almost going to believe that
XSLT 2.0 would be different from the majority of other programming
languages designed by a committee.
Obviously to voice an opinion that is only reasonable, is not enough to
affect this highly politicised process.
Anyway, thank you Mike for making this clear to us.
=====
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev.
http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list