"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0303191933140.479-100000@xxxxxxx
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Michael Kay wrote:
>
> > But surely a newcomer to any language should be surprised and delighted
> > to discover the unexpected ways that experienced users are exploiting
> > the technology?
>
> not really -- not when i'm trying to learn how to use it properly for
> the first time.
>
> part of what makes a language easily learned is to see it being
> used in a way that seems to match its basic design.  with XSLT,
> that's to see it used functionally.  nothing makes a language
> harder to get a grip on than to see it being manhandled to solve
> problems that don't seem "natural" for that language.

How can a newcomer judge what is the "basic design" and what is "natural"
for a language?

The fact that you may be experiencing difficulties in understanding these
does not mean that the language is used unnaturally.

Or shall we start a witch hunt because we do not understand how someone is
using the language and proclaim this use as "unnatural"?

As DavidC put it:

'Any problem for which an answer can be posted in a reasonably sized
email message is hardly pushing the bounds is it? Anything in that range
is "healthy use in unexpected areas" rather than using an "inappropriate
hammer".'

I think a language would be really boring if the limits of what it can or
cannot do were strictly defined.

Fortunately XSLT is not such a language.






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