"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com> wrote in message
news:Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)44(_dot_)0303191933140(_dot_)479-100000(_at_)dell(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Michael Kay wrote:
But surely a newcomer to any language should be surprised and delighted
to discover the unexpected ways that experienced users are exploiting
the technology?
not really -- not when i'm trying to learn how to use it properly for
the first time.
part of what makes a language easily learned is to see it being
used in a way that seems to match its basic design. with XSLT,
that's to see it used functionally. nothing makes a language
harder to get a grip on than to see it being manhandled to solve
problems that don't seem "natural" for that language.
How can a newcomer judge what is the "basic design" and what is "natural"
for a language?
The fact that you may be experiencing difficulties in understanding these
does not mean that the language is used unnaturally.
Or shall we start a witch hunt because we do not understand how someone is
using the language and proclaim this use as "unnatural"?
As DavidC put it:
'Any problem for which an answer can be posted in a reasonably sized
email message is hardly pushing the bounds is it? Anything in that range
is "healthy use in unexpected areas" rather than using an "inappropriate
hammer".'
I think a language would be really boring if the limits of what it can or
cannot do were strictly defined.
Fortunately XSLT is not such a language.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list