On 21/02/2008, Florent Georges <lists(_at_)fgeorges(_dot_)org> wrote:
I don't understand. By LILO I assume a queue and by LIFO a stack.
No, both are meant to be stacks. If you go up a few lines in my post,
you'll see it:
Very interesting indeed. Does this mean also that a LILO (last-in
becomes last-out) stack is to be preferred against LIFO (last-in
becomes first-out) ...
You can apply pop, top and push and still implement both types of a
stack. It would depend on your application which one you want. I
became accustomed to this terminology some time ago.
Manfred
On 21/02/2008, Florent Georges <lists(_at_)fgeorges(_dot_)org> wrote:
Manfred Staudinger wrote:
> On 21/02/2008, Florent Georges wrote:
> > And if I remember well, sequences in Saxon are represented
> > by iterators (so one knows the front directly, not the end).
> ... because it seems rather difficult to make LIFO symmetric
> in terms of performance to the LILO stack at the level of XSLT.
I don't understand. By LILO I assume a queue and by LIFO a stack.
--drkm
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--