[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: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 19:50:43 -0000
RE:  Re: . in for
> 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.

There's a debate going on about whether context should be provided as an
implicit parameter to user-defined functions or not. Optimisation is
certainly a lot easier if context is *not* retained through the function
call: in other words, if the function needs to know position(), it has to be
supplied as an explicit argument. In that case it certainly is possible to
detect whether an expression uses position() or last().

(This applies equally to XPath 1.0. Saxon currently assumes the worst case:
if an expression calls an extension function, then it's assumed to need
position() and last().)

Mike Kay

 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.