Re: key() Re: Saxon VS XT

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul at qub dot com>]

From: Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen

> > Those who want to see how key() 'simplifies the code'  are welcome
> > to guess what processing is implemented in test6.xsl stylesheet
> > by Sebastian ( without looking into .xml file, please ).
>
> Apparently Sebastian did not document his stylesheet.
> There was a thread some time ago upon the topic of embedding
> documentation within style sheets, for exactly this reason.

I think it is very bad approach to 'solve' the readability problem
with writing the comments.  Code should be self-documenting.
I suggest reading the latest Kernighan's book  ( It is
"The Practice of Programming" ) on this subjest.
I think we could trust to his (huge) coding experience.
He says that teaching students to 'write more comments'
is a bad practice and he also explains why.

I think that utilizing comments to 'explain the code' is very
similar to :

"we'l not fix this bug - we'l call it 'training issue'  and then
we'l ask user not to press this button".

This looks like nonsense to me,  but it is still a mainstream
in some countries.

Rgds.Paul.

PS. It appears that because of the lack of updateable variables,
it could be that key() is not the 'option' but a 'requirement'.

The 'flat puzzle' could ruin 2 buildings. One building is
my construction, but the second building is XSLT itself.

The language which *requires* usage of the 'tuning
roadsign' has no future. 'Tuning roadsign' is for tuning.
It is for 'computer'. 'Language' is for human beings.

Messing 2 things together - kills. What I'm really trying to
do is to *protect* the XSLT.  It is just not easy to see. ;-)




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