Subject: RE: [xsl] [XPath 3.0] Why should I bother specifying the "arity" of a function that I invoke? From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:09:51 +0000 |
> concat#3 is an expression that returns a function item. So is concat#3 equivalent to this partial function application: concat(?, ?, ?) If yes, when is one preferred over the other? /Roger -----Original Message----- From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:54 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [xsl] [XPath 3.0] Why should I bother specifying the "arity" of a function that I invoke? On 31/10/2012 21:06, Costello, Roger L. wrote: > Hi Folks, > > The XPath 3.0 specification says that when a named function is invoked you should specify the number of arguments (i.e., the arity): > > NamedFunctionRef ::= EQName "#" IntegerLiteral > > Here is an example: > > concat#3('Section', ': ', 1) > > But this works just as well: > > concat('Section', ': ', 1) > > So why should I bother specifying the arity? Is there a case where I *must* specify the arity? > concat#3 is an expression that returns a function item. You need it if you are going to store the function item in a variable, pass it to another function, return it from a function, or do other things that you can do with run-time values. You don't need a run-time function item if you know statically what function to call and if the only thing you want to do is to call the function. Michael Kay Saxonica
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] [XPath 3.0] Why should I , Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] [XPath 3.0] Why should I , Michael Kay |
[xsl] Re: transform html h1 with a , Giuseppe Briotti | Date | Re: [xsl] [XPath 3.0] Why should I , Michael Kay |
Month |