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)
- To: <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: RE: [exsl] Naming exsl:return/exsl:result (Was: Re: [xsl] Functional programming in XSLT)
- From: "Michael Kay" <mhkay at iclway dot co dot uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 03:56:10 -0000
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
> I must have missed a part of the discussion -- was there a
> feeling that
> it would be inappropriate to overload xsl:value-of? 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? It
> would then be
> possible for templates (or exsl:functions) to return references to the
> original node sets, and xsl:value-of would IMHO be a natural
> choice for this return value issue.
It is very much part of the semantics of xsl:value-of that it converts the
supplied value to a string.
xsl:copy-of would be closer to the mark, but still not quite right, because
that still converts numbers and booleans to strings.
Mike Kay
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list