This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for)
- From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev at yahoo dot com>
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:39:15 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: [xsl] Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for)
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
Joerg Pietschmann <joerg dot pietschmann at zkb dot ch> wrote:
[snip]
> This means you want lambda expressions.
>
> > - define a map expression (rather than a map() function)
>
> Note that in you proposal of a mapping operator
> $coordinates -> (. * 2)
> the second operand actually *is* already a lambda expression. Hint:
> the . is not bound to the value of the context node as it would
> have been in ordinary expressions.
> We can argue about inventing an XPath function xf:lambda() for this
> purpose, with all the consequences. I'd probably like it to have one,
> but i let it to Dmitre to make up the full proposal... :-)
I already noticed that Jeni's "mapping operator" is in fact lambda expression.
However, why make a special proposal for lambda expressions. The surprisingly
energetic response indicates that what people want (and nobody stood against this)
is support for higher-order functions in XPath 2.0. Having higher-order functions in
place, anonymous functions (lambda expressions) will naturally come as an added
benefit or just as a convenient shorthand.
Cheers,
Dimitre.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list