On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Vladimir
Nesterovsky<vladimir(_at_)nesterovsky-bros(_dot_)com> wrote:
Does it mean that XPath will be extended to be able to
declare inline functions?
Final decision not yet made, but I think that is the likely outcome.
Even if they don't, in many cases one can use functions that
dynamically create other functions. :)
Personally, I would remove everything except inline functions from "higher
order functions". They provide minimal and sufficient means to achieve the
goal. Redundant but equal ways to express the same idea just add more
decision points in programming.
This is the good side of it: you can't.
Even God can't restrict creativity (not that I think he would restrict
it in case he existed) :)
--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
-------------------------------------
I enjoy the massacre of ads. This sentence will slaughter ads without
a messy bloodbath.
--
Vladimir Nesterovsky
http://www.nesterovsky-bros.com/
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--