Actually, much though I would like to see functions supported as first-class
objects within the type system, most of the definitions of the term
"functional language" do not require this concept, and are aligned with the
way the XPath spec uses the term.
See for example http://www.google.com/search?q=define:functional+language
With Phil Wadler on the working group, we could hardly get away with using
the term in a way that's out of line with accepted definitions.
Michael Kay
-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Paul Adams
[mailto:colin(_at_)colina(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk]
Sent: 30 March 2004 07:52
To: xsl-list(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
Subject: [xsl] XPath is NOT a functional language
I don't no whether to be amused or appalled (I incline to the later),
to see this near the beginning of the XPath 2.0 draft:
[Definition: XPath is a functional language, which means that
expressions can be nested with full generality. ]
SINCE WHEN?
If a function definition were an expression, then this statement would
be true, but you can't even define functions in XPath, let alone pass
there definitions around. Nor can you pass a QNAME to stand for the
function definition either.
--
Colin Paul Adams
Preston Lancashire
--+------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail:
<mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--+--