[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: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:08:32 -0800 (PST)
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.


Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!

 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.