[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
RE: Can solve the N-queens - but can't count!
Subject: RE: Can solve the N-queens - but can't count! From: "Wilson, James.W" <James.W.Wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:52:43 -0500 |
I think those translate directly into user benefits. The lack of side effects in DSSSL meant that you could build up reusable function libraries that could be used with great confidence (since you knew they wouldn't bogus up some global state somewhere). Also, suppose you have a gigundous XML file in an XSL-aware editor and you change one tag which is in your relatively small viewing window. Should you have to re-render the whole file just to display that view window? Side-effect-freeness means (I think!) that you don't. James -----Original Message----- From: Kay Michael [mailto:Michael.Kay@xxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 1:27 PM To: 'xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: RE: Can solve the N-queens - but can't count! > Mike Kay wrote: > > I think it would be useful to the debate if someone could > articulate the reasons why stylesheets should be side-effect-free. > To which David Rosenborg responded: > Here are two reasons from which we have practical experience: > lazy evaluation and > implicit multithreading. In general the draft does not say > anything about the order in which things are processed. > I had a kind of feeling that the responses were going to be along the line "if we restrict what the user can do then we can have much more fun as implementors". Show me a user benefit! Mike XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Can solve the N-queens - but ca, Kay Michael | Thread | RE: Can solve the N-queens - but ca, Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus |
RE: Can solve the N-queens - but ca, Kay Michael | Date | Inserting un-encoded text, Tom Gilbert |
Month |
Keywords