Re: Re: Reference to variable cannot be resolved.

"David Carlisle" <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:200302141952.TAA10657@xxxxxxxx
>
> > What the WD specifies is two or more x-s with exactly the same scope.
> not _exactly_ the same as the second isn't in the scope of the first.
> I agree it looks worse because there isn't an explicit scope marking
> but xsl:variable is really just (let ...) with an implicit end of scope
> ) inserted at the end of the parent element, isn't it?
>
>
> I agree to xsl:variables with the same name that are siblings are
> probably a user error, but in stopping that xslt1 also stopped
> rebinding inside explicit nested element scope as well,
>
> But I think basically we are saying the same thing (just making it look
> like an argument to make it interesting)

We understand what the other is saying and probably agree. Probably this is
just a matter of taste.

However, my original question (to the WG) remains unanswered: "Why should a
language support a practice that (it says) must be discouraged?"


>
> > I think the biggest problem here is that the scope of a variable is no
> > longer obvious in these cases.

=====
Cheers,

Dimitre Novatchev.
http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL




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