[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template
Subject: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template From: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:43:45 -0500 (EST) |
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Jeni Tennison wrote: > <xsl:template name="foo"> > <bar> > <xsl:return select="'bar'" /> > </bar> > </xsl:template> I must say that I really do not like the "return" idea. The output of the template is the result-fragment it generates. If one wanted to call templates from XPath, then, one could have the result-fragment returned as a node-set. Simple. All of this "return" stuff gives me a headache, why is it necessary? If a <xsl:return> is necessary (evidence please), then I vote for Kay's <xsl:function>. The *worst* case is having both an output fragment _and_ a return statement. This combination makes no sense whatsoever. Best, Clark XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Jeni Tennison | Thread | RE: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Clark C. Evans | Date | Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call, Clark C. Evans |
Month |
Keywords