Re: xsl:function

--- Jeni wrote:
> I wrote:
> > What you *can* do (and what is done for the legacy XPath 1.0
> > functions that are polymorphic) is have the function accept a very
> > general type and then have internal tests that determine the
> > behaviour based on the type of the argument.
> 
> Of course if you want polymorphic behaviour with nodes rather than
> with atomic values, you're best off using templates rather than
> functions.

Last week some people at XMLEurope were asking me if there would be any reason to use FXSL with
XSLT 2.0.

Jeni has just explained it in a very nice way  -- with XSLT 2.0 FXSL will be at least as important
and necessary as with XSLT 1.0.

It is going also to be faster (using sequences) and more compact (using xsl:function wrappers).

And, of course, there's some important new functionality coming soon. 





=====
Cheers,

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

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

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