This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: [exsl] Naming exsl:return/exsl:result (Was: Re: Functional programming in XSLT)
I wrote:
> When the RTF concept is removed, would it not be possible to say that
> xsl:value-of just returns the original node set instead of a copy?
And that was of course me being forgetful. I was thinking of
xsl:copy-of, whose name seems inappropriate for overloading (I do make
that mistake often). IMHO an unfortunate choice of wordings in the
first place :-(
Given this I would vote for an addition of a generic primitive that
operates with the original node list (= by reference) rather than
copying it as xsl:copy-of does -- and then deprecate xsl:copy-of. I
suppose one could just change the xsl:copy-of semantics, but then the
name IMO is confusing, as the result might or might not involve copying
depending on the context.
At any rate such a new primitive should be available in all contexts;
returning values from functions would be a natural extension. Other
uses could include a xsl:variable whose value is a node list with
references to the original nodes (not copies). This is for situations
when the variable computation is complex enough that it cannot be
written as a simple `select' attribute and has to written as a
template. Currently we have no other choices but to make a RTF and then
use node-set(), but then the nodes are no longer the same they were in
the original document(s).
Cheers,
//lat
--
No the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text
editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.
TECO, to be precise. --Ed Post, "Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal"
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list