This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: RE: syntax sugar for call-template
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template
- From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce at clarkevans dot com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:43:45 -0500 (EST)
- cc: Michael Kay <mhkay at iclway dot co dot uk>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> <xsl:template name="foo">
> <bar>
> <xsl:return select="'bar'" />
> </bar>
> </xsl:template>
I must say that I really do not like the "return" idea.
The output of the template is the result-fragment it
generates. If one wanted to call templates from XPath,
then, one could have the result-fragment returned as a node-set.
Simple. All of this "return" stuff gives me a headache,
why is it necessary? If a <xsl:return> is necessary (evidence
please), then I vote for Kay's <xsl:function>. The *worst*
case is having both an output fragment _and_ a return statement.
This combination makes no sense whatsoever.
Best,
Clark
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list