S Woodside wrote:
> > So I'm curious... which XSLT processors cache and don't lazily evaluate
> > extension functions? And aren't extension elements, in theory, in the 
> > same boat? (If no one knows what I'm talking about, never mind...)
> 
> I don't think this counts as lazy evaluation, does it? Lazy implies 
> that it could evaluate it early, whereas here, you must evaluate when 
> it's used.

Roger Glover wrote:
> Hmmm, to me lazy evaluation implies that you evaluate as late and as
> infrequently as possible.

Sorry, you're both right; strike "don't" from my question.

http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=lazy+evaluation
explains further.

So I meant to ask which processors don't always evaluate f(x) to find out that
it's y, never remembering that f(x) *is* y for subsequent calls. For extension
functions, people often count on the evaluation having side-effects or
returning different results, so I'm interested to know which processors
will catch these people off-guard. I think XT might be one of them, IIRC.

Mike

-- 
  Mike J. Brown   |  http://skew.org/~mike/resume/
  Denver, CO, USA |  http://skew.org/xml/

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list