Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I see your point. On the other hand, it is a matter of versioning even if output is routed back to input where the cycle count identifies the version. Many models of NLDS are viewpoint-dependent. Careful though; we'll go down the rathole of first cause. len From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) scripsit: > What you are describing is what is sometimes called, > "self-modifying code". I've been taught that self-modifying > code isn't safe code and I've accepted that as an > article of faith, so I can't verify that with facts. > Still if so, what I would ask is if XML > and XSLT (modify by transformation) is safer > than when done in other languages and if so, why? XSLT programs of this type are not *self*-modifying. Rather, they modify other code that happens to resemble themselves. It is then up to something outside the XSLT environment to re-execute the modified code. This is no more a case of self-modification than when a compiler compiles a modified version of itself: the new compiler must be put into effect by something outside itself, typically an installation routine.
|
