Re: Re: . in for

Hi Jeni,

> 
> I imagine that a processor would be able to spot situations where the
> position() or last() function had been called and only compose the
> steps that were composable.
>   

It seems to me obviously not so -- I mean the general task of spotting ***any***
function in the expression, that could reference not only the specific item in the
sequence. This includes any user-defined functions.

This leads us to the great topic of type-checking and why it is necessary...

In case there isn't strong type-checking such re-writing/optimisations are
impossible in the general case.


Cheers,
Dimitre.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

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