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