Re: XPath is NOT a functional language

Its definatly a functional language...
an xpath expression is simply an interface to a series of function calls.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Kay" <mhk@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:38 PM
Subject: RE:  XPath is NOT a functional language


> Actually, much though I would like to see functions supported as
first-class
> objects within the type system, most of the definitions of the term
> "functional language" do not require this concept, and are aligned with
the
> way the XPath spec uses the term.
>
> See for example http://www.google.com/search?q=define:functional+language
>
> With Phil Wadler on the working group, we could hardly get away with using
> the term in a way that's out of line with accepted definitions.
>
> Michael Kay
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Colin Paul Adams [mailto:colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 30 March 2004 07:52
> > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject:  XPath is NOT a functional language
> >
> > I don't no whether to be amused or appalled (I incline to the later),
> > to see this near the beginning of the XPath 2.0 draft:
> >
> > [Definition: XPath is a functional language, which means that
> > expressions can be nested with full generality. ]
> >
> > SINCE WHEN?
> >
> > If a function definition were an expression, then this statement would
> > be true, but you can't even define functions in XPath, let alone pass
> > there definitions around. Nor can you pass a QNAME to stand for the
> > function definition either.
> > --
> > Colin Paul Adams
> > Preston Lancashire