Re: Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: RE: synta

Uche Ogbuji wrote:


> > > 2. Calling Functions
> > > --------------------
> > > 2.b. Passing parameters by position vs. name
> > > 
> > 
> > fn(QName, p1="Name1 Value1",..., pN="NameN ValueN")
> > 
> > This allows parameters to be passed by name (as above), 
> > 
> > by position:
> > 
> > fn(QName, p1="Value1",..., pN="ValueN")
> > 
> > or even in a mixed fashion:
> > 
> > fn(QName, p1="Value1", p2="Value2", p3="Name3 Value3",..., pN="NameN ValueN")
> > 
> > Here the first two parameters are passed positionally, the rest are passed by name.
> > 
> > 
> > This syntax is by far the most intuitive and easy to remember. 
> > It is also the most brief and flexible.
> 
> Yes, but it's not legal XSLT 1.0.  I think this system must be legal XSLT 1.0 
> (another argument against embedding it in xsl:script).  First of all, XSLT 1.1 
> has just had a first WD.  It could be over a year before it becomes REC, and 
> even after that, there will be many XSLT 1.0 users and implementations about 
> for years to come.
> 
> And after all, there's no indication that your preferred syntax would be legal 
> XSLT 2.0 either.

Yes, I already changed it to "legal" -- during our dialog with Jeni:

exsl:fn(QName, "Name1 Value1",..., "NameN ValueN")


I agree with you that this "preferred syntax" may not be legal 
even in XSLT 4.0 -- especially in case I never expressed it to anyone... :o))

Dimitre Novatchev.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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