Re: Complex recursion in XSLT 1.0

On 21/02/2008, Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   I don't understand.  By LILO I assume a queue and by LIFO a stack.

No, both are meant to be stacks. If you go up a few lines in my post,
you'll see it:
> Very interesting indeed. Does this mean also that a LILO (last-in
> becomes last-out) stack is to be preferred against LIFO (last-in
> becomes first-out) ...
You can apply pop, top and push and still implement both types of a
stack. It would depend on your application which one you want. I
became accustomed to this terminology some time ago.

Manfred

On 21/02/2008, Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Manfred Staudinger wrote:
>
>
>  > On 21/02/2008, Florent Georges wrote:
>
>  > >   And if I remember well, sequences in Saxon are represented
>  > >  by iterators (so one knows the front directly, not the end).
>
>  > ... because it seems rather difficult to make LIFO symmetric
>  > in terms of performance to the LILO stack at the level of XSLT.
>
>
>   I don't understand.  By LILO I assume a queue and by LIFO a stack.
>
>
>  --drkm