This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Functional programming in XSLT
- To: <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: Re: [xsl] Functional programming in XSLT
- From: "Steve Muench" <Steve dot Muench at oracle dot com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:12:00 -0800
- References: <000b01c0ad3b$cf4d4fc0$2d3a3c3e@oemcomputer>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
| But there are still two things I don't much care for. One is the "implicit
| result" of an RTF, I'd prefer people to write
|
| <exsl:function ...>
| <exsl:return>
| <tree/>
| </exsl:return>
| </exsl:function>
|
| rather than just
|
| <exsl:function ...>
| <tree/>
| </exsl:function>
I agree with Michael on this.
| Secondly, I don't like treating multiple exsl:result's as a "recoverable
| error".
I agree witih Michael on this, too.
| I still prefer having a static constraint on where <exsl:return> can appear,
| but if you can't live with that, have a strict rule that only one may be
| instantiated.
A rule that only one can be instantiated seems workable to me.
| (And incidentally, I prefer "return" to "result". It's in tune with the
| imperative style of other keywords such as call-template, apply-templates,
| include, import.)
I also prefer "return". It's more "verby", as M.K. notes, in the
XSLT naming style.
______________________________________________________________
Steve Muench, Lead XML Evangelist & Consulting Product Manager
BC4J & XSQL Servlet Development Teams, Oracle Rep to XSL WG
Author "Building Oracle XML Applications", O'Reilly
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/orxmlapp/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list