RE: XSLT 1.1 comments

> <saxon:function> looks just right, now I've looked it up.
>
> And I'm just hoping and guessing - again without research -
> that implementing this feature is largely syntax-sugar - and if not,
> let's make it optional.
>
It wasn't difficult to implement but it wasn't pure syntactic sugar either.
There were three things that needed care: using positional arguments instead
of named arguments in the call; preventing the function writing to the
output tree; and ensuring that lazy evaluation of node-sets still worked in
the case where a node-set was returned from a function. But apart from the
questions of data typing mentioned earlier (and those are no worse than any
other implications of data typing on XSLT), I don't think there are any
reasons to regard the facility as being risky, or bad coding practice.

Mike Kay


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list