Subject: Re: [xsl] Multiple elements condition From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:37:25 -0400 |
> I think there might be a rule here of "code the obvious"
yes actually I need the construct quite often in the day job and what we seem to have mostly is
foo[2] and not(foo[3])
which I think is reasonably clear and likely to be as efficient as anything.
Cheers, Wendell
====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Multiple elements conditi, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] Multiple elements conditi, Abel Braaksma |
RE: [xsl] Calculating cumulative va, Simon Shutter | Date | [xsl] Unexpected behaviour with XSL, Wasiq Shaikh |
Month |