Subject: Re: [xsl] RE: Designs for XSLT functions From: Jeni Tennison <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:31:44 +0000 |
Mike Kay wrote: >> An apply() function (which simply calls another function whose name >> is decided at runtime) would be easier to use than a >> general-purpose evaluate() routine though. Programmatically >> constructing a syntactically valid XPath expression can be tricky. >> >> Apply() would likely also be easier to implement and more efficient >> than evaluate(). [snip] > Ease of implementation? It's easier to implement one construct than > two, and if one is a subset of the functionality of the other, I'd > rather implement the more general one. I think the important part to me here is "if one is a subset of the functionality of the other". Unless we find a way of passing parameters by name with static function calls, then evaluate() will be limited to only passing values by position just as the static function calls are. With a separate function (apply() or exsl:call or x:fn or whatever you want to call it), we could have additional functionality that included passing parameters by name. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] RE: Designs for XSLT func, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] RE: Designs for XSLT func, Uche Ogbuji |
RE: [xsl] Converting RSS to HTML, Ronan Brady | Date | Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Clark C. Evans |
Month |