This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Re: . in for
- From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev at yahoo dot com>
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni at jenitennison dot com>
- Cc: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:08:32 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: . in for
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
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.
Cheers,
Dimitre.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list