> > > > I think clearly separating the specification of the abilities:
> > > >
> > > > -> to statically define and statically
> > > > invoke functions in XSLT, and
> > > >
> > > > -> to dynamically invoke functions
>
> I don't see any need for special syntax to invoke functions whose name is
> decided at run-time. That can easily be done using a general-purpose
> evaluate() extension that constructs XPath expressions from strings.
I do see the need.
First of all, exsl:call() would be more efficient than exsl:evaluate() in any
implementation scenario I can readily imagine. The former simply expands the
name and looks up in a symbol table. The latter involves full LR(k) parsing,
with lexing.
Also, there is the special ability Jeni and I have suggested for exsl:call to
permit named parameters, which I think is very useful.
--
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
- Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: RE: syntax sugar for call-template), (continued)
- Steve Muench - Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:08:13 -0500 (EST)
- Jeni Tennison - Mon, 19 Feb 2001 04:17:38 -0500 (EST)
- Uche Ogbuji - Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:33:16 -0500 (EST)
- Michael Kay - Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:39:23 -0500 (EST)
- Uche Ogbuji - Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:42:54 -0500 (EST) <=
- Steve Muench - Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:27:35 -0500 (EST)
- Uche Ogbuji - Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:39:43 -0500 (EST)
- Francis Norton - Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:55:54 -0500 (EST)
- Jeni Tennison - Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:06:45 -0500 (EST)
|
|