RE: RE; Re: RE: syntax sugar for call-template
Hi Mike, > > It is possible to have a positional only syntax form like in: > > > > fn(functionQName, p1="p1Value" ... pN="pNValue") > > > > ... The above will be directly usable from within an XPath expression. > > > Not within an XPath 1.0 expression it won't. > > Within the XSL+XPath conformance rules, we have the option of defining new > extension functions and extension elements, we don't have the option of > extending the XPath syntax. > > (If it weren't for that, I'd be perfectly happy with named arguments in > function calls.) I'd also be happy -- can't this be proposed for XPath 2.0? As for the nearest future, a slightly changed syntax will fit into XPath 1.0: fn(functionQName, p1Value, ... pNValue) The above is strictly positional. We could also have the following fn(functionQName, "p1Name p1Value", ... "pNName pNValue") all arguments are name-value pairs and this is essentially passing arguments by name. Or we could even have the following: fn(functionQName, "p1Value", "p2Value", "p3Name p3Value",... "pNName pNValue") here the first two arguments are passed by position and the rest -- by name. 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
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format