xsl-list
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Better include them in the XSLT 2.0 spec (Was: Re: [xsl] Time for an exslt for 2.0?)

2005-05-13 02:49:15
On 13 May 2005 09:42:53 +0100, Colin Paul Adams
<colin(_at_)colina(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
"Dimitre" == Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:

   Dimitre> This is the problem it shouldn't, according to the XSLT
   Dimitre> 2.0 spec: there are cases when my:f($x) is my:f($x)

   Dimitre> evaluates to false().

   Dimitre> This happens when my:f() is defined in such a way that it
   Dimitre> creates new node(s) on every evaluation.

Oh dear. Yes, of course.
Which is why you would like a memoization attribute within the spec?
To clearly mark those functions which are not pure? 
 
No.

Or to change the
semantics of functions that call xsl:element, for instance? 

No, none of these

Surely you
can't expect the WG to agree to such a substantial change at this late stage?

Please, read what I wrote -- it was said clearly.



Or are you requesting banning non-pure functions altogether?

I was talking not about "functions" but about xsl:function

Does it make a difference now?


Cheers,
Dimitre

--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>