[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: [xsl] The real harm is in functions with side effects (Was: Re: Using Extension Functions - Its Efficiency)
Subject: Re: [xsl] The real harm is in functions with side effects (Was: Re: Using Extension Functions - Its Efficiency) From: David Tolpin <dvd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:42:35 +0400 (AMT) |
> Unfortunately, some functional languages (XSLT included) lack a built-in > support for controlling side-effects. > > Haskell has the notion of a Monad class built-into the language and any > programmer simply uses the IO (or any other suitable type) Monad, when > this is necessary. The only thing is that Monads are not built into the language. IO Monads are built-in, but, in the same sense as print capabilities are built into some languages, it does not mean that all functions are built-in. Monads are just continuation passing -- many things are expressed with Monads, and can be done with any facility with first-order functions. Monads are as good in Java, Scheme, Ruby, and even in python as they are in Haskell, the thing XSLT lacks is first-order functions, not Monads. David Tolpin XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] The real harm is in funct, Kurt Cagle | Thread | Re: [xsl] The real harm is in funct, Robert Koberg |
Re: [xsl] The real harm is in funct, Kurt Cagle | Date | [xsl] Emacs, nxml, xslt-process and, Gary Cornelius |
Month |
Keywords