[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
[xsl] Re: XSL-List Digest V4 #1736
Subject: [xsl] Re: XSL-List Digest V4 #1736 From: Eric Promislow <ericp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:28:34 -0700 |
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:47:23 +0100, "Michael Kay" <mhk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > A processor for a functional language may decide (and there > > are many cases when this happens) to perform lazy evaluation. > > > > Among other things lazy evaluation means not to report an > > error, which does not actually affect the evaluation. > > This is one reason why in XSLT 2.0 we have distinguished very clearly > between static errors and dynamic errors. If an error is defined as a > static error then the processor must report it, even if the code is > never executed. Referring to an undeclared variable is a static error in > XSLT 2.0. I would agree with this. The time spent checking for unused variables at compile-time is dwarfed by the convenience of finding typos in variable names. Good to hear that the 2.0 group addressed this area. - Eric > > However, I am surprised that any 1.0 processor should fail to report an > error on the example submitted, where the reference to the undeclared > (or out-of-scope) variable does actually appear to be evaluated. And as you later stated, none of the three I tested did, I just didn't write it up as clearly as I could. > > Michael Kay > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Apply Templates question, Richard Lander | Thread | [xsl] RE: XPath: selecting matching, Richard Lewis |
Re: [xsl] Images in block-container, J.Pietschmann | Date | [xsl] RE: XPath: selecting matching, Richard Lewis |
Month |
Keywords