On 9/5/07, David Carlisle <davidc(_at_)nag(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Such a construct would only really be useful if you could rely on the
processor evaluating all the items in a for-each in order, but that is
explictly not the case. One of the benefits of a side effect free
language is that it is naturally parallelisable. It's best to assume
that all the items in a for-each are evaluated in parallel, and the
results assembled at the end and passed on. If you view it this way the
fact that you can't "stop" a for-each based on the processing of one of
the items should seem far more natural. If you need the processing of
one item to depend on the result of processing another, don't use
for-each, use a recursive template that processes the item and then just
conditionally processes the next item if needed.
In this case the for-each iterates over items in a sequence
(xs:integers), which makes me wonder if the same rule applies?
Is it conceivable for a processor to parallelise the processing of a
sequence of atomic values and then reassemble the results in sequence
order, or does that only apply to nodes and document order?
--
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--