Re: [exsl] Naming exsl:return/exsl:result (Was: Re: [xsl] Functional programming in XSLT)

["Lassi A. Tuura" <lat at iki dot fi>]

> I think we need an imperative term that doesn't imply that the
> function terminates.

exsl:result-value?
exsl:result-part?

(But then somebody already objected to return-value...)

I must have missed a part of the discussion -- was there a feeling that
it would be inappropriate to overload xsl:value-of?  When the RTF
concept is removed, would it not be possible to say that xsl:value-of
just returns the original node set instead of a copy?  It would then be
possible for templates (or exsl:functions) to return references to the
original node sets, and xsl:value-of would IMHO be a natural choice for
this return value issue.

I suppose xsl:value-of returning references instead of a copy might
create no end of confusion, but I can't think any such context now. 
Anybody else?

//lat
-- 
Never be ashamed to own you have been wrong, 'tis but
saying you are wiser today than you were yesterday.

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