But to answer your more general question, you're correct that in
unextended XSLT 1.0 you have to call templates to perform functions
and that sometimes this can lead to verbose and ungainly code.
However, most XSLT processors have a mechanism for defining
extension functions. Several support EXSLT's
func:function/func:result elements,
which enable you to do:
Correct me if I'm wrong, or restarting an ancient debate, but it
strikes me that using XSLT in this way is basically "Wrong" or a Bad
Thing. I've found that usually there is a fairly simple way to avoid
procedural techniques if I conceptualize the program as being the XML
data, and think of it as the data making calls on the XSLT.
Using an extension function is not equivalent to using procedural style
of programming. There's nothing procedural in extension functions,
which do not depend on the state of the outer world and do not alter
anything -- e.g. calculation of sin(), cos(),... etc.
I agree with you that even using such extension functions may have its
drawbacks, but due to another reason -- this will significantly affect
the portability of an xslt application.
Even when having extension functions with side effects, there is
nothing bad if we can control them in a reliable way. This has been
done in other functional languages (e.g. in Haskell by using monads).
Right at this moment I'm finishing the first implementation of a set of
templates that provides functionality roughly equal to that of a Monad.
This will be included in the next release of FXSL. This allows using
extension functions with side effects in a controlled manner and
generally gives the ability to write reliable imperative-styled code in
XSLT.
=====
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev.
http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list