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 11:17:43 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: . in for
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
--- Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
> Hi Dimitre,
>
> >> 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.
>
> Yes, you're right of course - the focus at the point at which the
> user-defined function is called provides the focus for the body of the
> function when it's defined by xsl:function, and that will propagate
> through function (and named template) calls from those functions and
> so on, making it impractical for the processor to spot.
>
> I do think that the position of an item in a sequence is going to be
> an important piece of information, particularly because items in
> sequences can't be sequences themselves. Yet another
> usability/optimisability trade-off I suppose.
>
Yes, and this actually means that a piped 'mapping operator' would not be possible
to optimise by the XSLT processor and to convert it into a single map applying a
composition of functions. Piped/composed map-s will require big space, proportional
to the number of map-s, as compared with the single map operation.
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