On 23-5-2014 22:28, Dimitre Novatchev dnovatchev(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com wrote:
The Functions and Operators 3.0 recommendation
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions-30/) uses the term "closure" of
a function:
"In effect, the static and dynamic part of the context thus act as
part of the closure of the function item."
However, there is no formal definition of "closure".
A search for "closure " in the Data-Model 3.0" Recommendation yields 0
results.
It appears to me that at some point the term "closure" was dropped. In
the public 06/2011 version of the XDM, a definition existed:
"[Definition: The combination of the variable values needed to execute a
function and the function implementation are called a closure.]" (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xpath-datamodel-30-20110614/#function-items)
But in the following draft, 12/2011, this was dropped/revised.
It looks like the term closure was not fully removed in related documents.
However, the XDM defines the so called "nonlocal variable bindings":
"nonlocal variable bindings (a mapping from xs:QName to item()*): This
provides a value for each of the function's free variables (i.e.,
variables referenced by the function's implementation, other than
locals and parameters)."
My question is:
Is it safe to assume that what is referred to as the "closure"
property of functions in the F & O document is the same as the
"nonlocal variable bindings" property of functions, defined in the
XDM?
Yes, I think that is a safe assumption.
Cheers,
Abel Braaksma
Exselt XSLT 3.0 streaming processor
http://exselt.net
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--