Re: Re: Re: Counting nodes efficiently

"Wendell Piez" <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6.0.0.22.0.20040219173918.03581730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dimitre--
>
> At 05:22 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote:
> >I hope that the right term will prevail through being more frequently
used.
>
> Me too. "Forward walk?"

Just "Tree walk"?

>
> Generally terms like this are adopted either when someone comes up with a
> really compelling name and it sticks, or someone thinks up something so
> nifty and so useful that they wake up to find their own name on it. (Ask
> Steve Muench, whose name will be mispronounced by users of XSLT 1.0
> forevermore.)
>
> But I don't recall who stole the forward walk from whom. I think I first
> saw it from either Mike Kay, or Jeni. (Naturally.)

I have seen Jeni use tree walk several times and probably (don't remember)
she also used it the sense of replacement/analog to the classic identity
rule.

> It's an interesting
> technique since it's essentially taking the trouble to do explicitly what
> the default traversal would do anyway, but allowing for particular
tactical
> interventions (like testing or your counting).

This shows the benefits of trying to analyze into bits something that we are
accustomed doing automatically and as a one whole.

> "Forced forward walk"? It
> sounds like a pirate ship.

Nobody is being forced.

Maybe "micro-walk" or "serial-walk" ?
>
> Cheers,
> Wendell

Cheers,

Dimitre Novatchev [XML MVP],
FXSL developer, XML Insider,

http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL
Resume: http://fxsl.sf.net/DNovatchev/Resume/Res.html




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