[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Re: . in for

Subject: Re: Re: . in for
From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:20:30 +0000
Re:  Re: . in for
Hi Dimitre,

>> 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.

Yes, you're right of course - the focus at the point at which the
user-defined function is called provides the focus for the body of the
function when it's defined by xsl:function, and that will propagate
through function (and named template) calls from those functions and
so on, making it impractical for the processor to spot.

I do think that the position of an item in a sequence is going to be
an important piece of information, particularly because items in
sequences can't be sequences themselves. Yet another
usability/optimisability trade-off I suppose.



Jeni Tennison

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

Current Thread


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.