RE: XPath is NOT a functional language

Yeah, I followed up the last reply with an "open mouth, insert foot"
statement.

As to Colin's last email I can totally see his point.  If the point of
making the statement in the first place was to tie together XPath with
the XSLT and XQuery drafts while still maintaining itself as an
independent technology then a statement needs to be made clarifying the
distinction.  As to what that statement is, I'm neither an author of the
draft nor even a distant cousin of one who is so I will stop making
suggestions.  But I can see the point that something needs to be said to
clarify the "functional" statement.  My guess is that it was put there
for a reason...  I'm just not sure at this point exactly what that
reason is...

Any thoughts?

<M:D/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 9:48 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE:  XPath is NOT a functional language

At 9:08 AM -0700 3/30/04, M. David Peterson wrote:
>I don't know of any other technology that is using XPath at the core of
>its functionality.  Therefore I don't know if this argument is true for
>every instance of XPath implementation.  Anyone know of another
>implementation that would not be considered a functional language?


Absolutely. Consider Jaxen or any of the other XPath APIs to 
non-functional languages. Or consider XSLT + the non-functional 
extensions some vendors provide.  There's nothing in XPath that 
requires it to be implemented only in a functional language.
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
 
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaula
itA