[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Functional programming in XSLT
Jeni Tennison wrote: [Mike Kay had written:] > > (And incidentally, I prefer "return" to "result". It's in tune with > > the imperative style of other keywords such as call-template, > > apply-templates, include, import.) On the other hand, xsl:value-of and xsl:copy-of are not imperative in style (and like import, call-template and apply-templates, are placed in the "instruction" category in the TR). As an aside, I think this sort of semantic variation makes XSLT harder to approach initially than it need be. But back to the point at hand: > That's one vote for exsl:result (Uche) and one vote for exsl:return > (you). Any other opinions? Is it doing something or being something? Is it to be viewed as an instruction to the processor to perform a return, or as a statement that at this point we are seeing some value? If that decision is impossible or the answer ambiguous, ummm ... avoid the issue: "exsl:return-value" could be read as imperative by those who want imperative and as nominal by those who want nominal :-) I agree with Mike and others that an RTF result is better off wrapped explicitly in exsl:rwhatever-it's-going-to-be. Colin XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
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
|