"David Carlisle" <davidc(_at_)nag(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote in message
news:200302141952(_dot_)TAA10657(_at_)e3000(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)
What the WD specifies is two or more x-s with exactly the same scope.
not _exactly_ the same as the second isn't in the scope of the first.
I agree it looks worse because there isn't an explicit scope marking
but xsl:variable is really just (let ...) with an implicit end of scope
) inserted at the end of the parent element, isn't it?
I agree to xsl:variables with the same name that are siblings are
probably a user error, but in stopping that xslt1 also stopped
rebinding inside explicit nested element scope as well,
But I think basically we are saying the same thing (just making it look
like an argument to make it interesting)
We understand what the other is saying and probably agree. Probably this is
just a matter of taste.
However, my original question (to the WG) remains unanswered: "Why should a
language support a practice that (it says) must be discouraged?"
I think the biggest problem here is that the scope of a variable is no
longer obvious in these cases.
=====
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev.
http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list