[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: [xsl] Functional programming in XSLT

---

---

Jeni Tennison wrote:
[Mike Kay had written:]
> > (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.)

On the other hand, xsl:value-of and xsl:copy-of are not imperative in
style (and like import, call-template and apply-templates, are placed in
the "instruction" category in the TR).

As an aside, I think this sort of semantic variation makes XSLT harder
to approach initially than it need be. But back to the point at hand:

> That's one vote for exsl:result (Uche) and one vote for exsl:return
> (you).  Any other opinions?

Is it doing something or being something? Is it to be viewed as an
instruction to the processor to perform a return, or as a statement that
at this point we are seeing some value? If that decision is impossible
or the answer ambiguous, ummm ... avoid the issue: "exsl:return-value"
could be read as imperative by those who want imperative and as nominal
by those who want nominal :-)

I agree with Mike and others that an RTF result is better off wrapped
explicitly in exsl:rwhatever-it's-going-to-be.

Colin

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

---