Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for)

>  However, why make a special proposal for lambda expressions. The surprisingly
>  energetic response indicates that what people want (and nobody stood against
this)
>  is support for higher-order functions in XPath 2.0. Having higher-order functions
>  in place, anonymous functions (lambda expressions) will naturally come as an
added
>  benefit or just as a convenient shorthand. 
>
>
>
>
> Dimitre please post that www-xpath-comments arguing for higher order
> functions now rather than Xpath5 (I suspect most of the Xquery side
> of the working group won't see arguments on this list, and they're the
> ones you have to convince I suspect)
> 
> David

David, I wish I could, but I'll need help from everybody, especially from people,
who are XSLT experts and native English speakers (like you and Jeni). I haven't done
this by now, because I somehow have the feeling that such a proposal is
pre-determined to fail. I'll never be able to write like Jeni, and even her
proposals have mixed chances of success...

For a start how do you think a general layout of such proposal should look like?
What sections and in what order?

Maybe we can start at least working on this section by section?

Cheers,
Dimitre.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

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