On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 02:41:46PM +0000, Liam R. E. Quin liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx scripsit:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 12:27:55 -0000
> "Roger L Costello costello@xxxxxxxxx"
> <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > How would you rename these procedural-looking words so that they are
> > declarative-looking:
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > 
> > C"BBapply-templatesC"BB would be renamed to C"BB&
> 
> use-template-value maybe? or simply evaluate

descend-with-matching

> > C"BBcall-templateC"BB would be renamed to C"BB&
> 
> use-template, again, or evaluate, with @name

add-to-result

> > C"BBselectC"BB would be renamed to C"BB&
> select :)

Yup, select.

> > C"BBiterateC"BB would be renamed to C"BB&
> 
> recurse maybe.

I think iterate is indeed iterate!

[snipped some agreement]
> and xsl:for-each might be called xsl:combine (emphasizing that it can
> be in parallel)

do-unto-all

"Morally simultaneous" has sometimes got across how xsl:for-each works.

> But getting consensus would be difficult :) and if the terms are too
> "strange" people would find the result hard to approach.

One of the really really tough things about starts-with-X coding is that
XPath requires you to understand the data model, it really really isn't
just like a file hiearchy; XSLT is a template language where the
templates trigger on that same data model, and XQuery is a tuple stream
processor.

There aren't many similar things out there. People go into it expecting
it to work like what they're used to and it doesn't. That "doesn't" is a
feature, but it is also a bunch of stuff that has to be explained,
people aren't going to figure it out on their own.

-- Graydon

--  
Graydon Saunders  | graydonish@xxxxxxxxxxxx
CBCB&s oferCB)ode, CB0isses swCB! mCB&g.
-- Deor  ("That passed, so may this.")