Subject: Re: [xsl] saxon:try() From: Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:22:42 +0100 (CET) |
Colin Paul Adams wrote: > >>>>> "Florent" == Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Florent> > http://www.fgeorges.org/xslt/error-safe/error-safe.html > This is quite interesting. > Why do you say that the FOAR0001 error shouldn't be > caught? XSLT doesn't define the order of execution, so it > seems reasonable to me that the error is caught. Yes, this is why the error is caught, because Saxon doesn't execute the instructions in the same order as in their lexical representation within the stylesheet (and that's a good thing, that's what enables lazy evaluation of variables). But I think that the ex:error-safe instruction should be exactly predictable, deterministic. If an expression stands lexically outside of the instruction, if it produces an exception, it shouldn't be caught (but that's only my humble point of view). The drawback is that the instruction could then be a border for several optimization opportunities... So the answer to your question is "because it is defined as such", but this is only a personal draft for a personal extension :-). Regards, --drkm _____________________________________________________________________________ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] saxon:try(), Colin Paul Adams | Thread | Re: [xsl] saxon:try(), Colin Paul Adams |
RE: [xsl] XML File Lister for Apach, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] saxon:try(), Florent Georges |
Month |