Is this the internet messing with functional programming definitions / terms?
For UUID it would seem that is wanted (if not needed), either via an
extension
as Mike has done, or via a non-functional call (same as non-deterministic?).
Has this never come up in WG discussions?
A really interesting thread.
regards
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 14:59, Christophe Marchand cmarchand@xxxxxxxxxx
<xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In my opinion, all those functions that depend on external things, as
> existence or non-existence of a file, content return by an http request
> can not be specified as deterministic, as implementors are not
> responsible of the returned value.
>
> If specification defines these function as deterministic, as an
> implementor point of view, I should cache the result calculated by the
> first call, and always return the same content, without querying again
> the underlying resource ; this is not convenient, especially if the
> resource is a very huge resource.
>
> I think these functions should not be deterministic.
>
> Best regards,
> Christophe
>
> Le 12/11/2020 C 11:33, Norm Tovey-Walsh ndw@xxxxxxxxxx a C)crit :
> > Dimitre Novatchev dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx
<xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> It seems to me that tagging the function unparsed-text() as
"deterministic"
> >> was rather inaccurate... And definitely not useful, if we need hacks as
> >> workarounds for its limitations...
> > Do you think fn:unparsed-text() should be different with respect to
> > determinism than fn:doc() (and fn:document(), come to that)? Or do you
> > think they should also be nondeterministic?
> >
> > (I donbt feel strongly one way or the other, Ibm just wondering about
> > the distinction.)
> >
> > Be seeing you,
> > norm
> >
> > --
> > Norman Tovey-Walsh <ndw@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > https://nwalsh.com/
> >
> >> If you don't have the time to do it right, where are you going to find
> >> the time to do it over?
> >
>
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
|