Re: Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: RE: synta

> > 2. Calling Functions
> > --------------------
> > 
> > 2.a. exsl:function() vs. my:func()
> > 
> 
> None of these.
> 
> Just:
> 
> fn()
> 
> I think fn() must be a standard XSLT/XPath function -- these functions do not have 
> a full QName.

I don't follow you.


> > 2.b. Passing parameters by position vs. name
> > 
> 
> fn(QName, p1="Name1 Value1",..., pN="NameN ValueN")
> 
> This allows parameters to be passed by name (as above), 
> 
> by position:
> 
> fn(QName, p1="Value1",..., pN="ValueN")
> 
> or even in a mixed fashion:
> 
> fn(QName, p1="Value1", p2="Value2", p3="Name3 Value3",..., pN="NameN ValueN")
> 
> Here the first two parameters are passed positionally, the rest are passed by name.
> 
> 
> This syntax is by far the most intuitive and easy to remember. 
> It is also the most brief and flexible.

Yes, but it's not legal XSLT 1.0.  I think this system must be legal XSLT 1.0 
(another argument against embedding it in xsl:script).  First of all, XSLT 1.1 
has just had a first WD.  It could be over a year before it becomes REC, and 
even after that, there will be many XSLT 1.0 users and implementations about 
for years to come.

And after all, there's no indication that your preferred syntax would be legal 
XSLT 2.0 either.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com 
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python



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