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
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