This is the mail archive of the
mailing list .
Re: [exsl] Naming exsl:return/exsl:result (Was: Re: Functional programming in XSLT)
Jeni Tennison wrote:
> So I don't think that exsl:return should terminate the function.
> And personally I think that means that it shouldn't be called
> exsl:return or have any connotations that the function is terminated
> (which unhappily I think that exsl:return-value does too). I think
> that it will cause confusion amongst the majority who will not read
> the definition closely.
> I think we need an imperative term that doesn't imply that the
> function terminates. exsl:result-in, exsl:fix-result,
> exsl:set-result... others?
exsl:report-value? Or (non-imperative) exsl:value-of?
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list