This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: The evaluate function
- From: Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz at frictionless dot com>
- To: "'xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com'" <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 18:46:03 -0500
- Subject: RE: [xsl] The evaluate function
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
I knew I'd be tapping into some controversy... Just didn't know how fierce
:)
I'm still unclear how the addition of a dynamic eval, if implemented as a
function, would violate the assumption that all (other) expressions are
static. Would it be possible to treat these as special and treat the rest
as optimizable?
> Without answering your question, I'll address what I think you're implying
:)
No implication intended. I really do want to know which processors don't
support the eval function. If I end up relying on the existence of such a
capability (without the support of the standard) I'd at least like to know
that it's generally available. (Yes, I know, bad practice in the standards
world).
> Introducing evaluate() now, IMHO, would be an example of premature
optimization.
Hmm? Are you saying that it's too early in the language's history to
introduce such a feature (and remove the assumption of static expressions)?
If so, wouldn't it be an example of premature de-optimization ;-)
Mark
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list