Re: Regular expression functions (Was: Re: [xsl] comments on December F&O draft)

[David Carlisle <davidc at nag dot co dot uk>]

>I think a lot of this could be refined, but that as a general approach
> it might be feasible. Any thoughts?

yes this is sort of more like I had in mind

You said
> I suggest a function (or two, perhaps,
> given the general avoidance of function overloading) that basically
> tokenises a string based on a regular expression. The signature of the
> function would be:

and I said in a message that I posted a second before getting yours:

 I'd hoped (but haven't been able to cleanly spec so far)
  to stay with just adding regexp functionality even in this case,
  as that is (often) enough to tokenise the input string, and to control
  the extra state information required to parse the tokens using
  existing XSLT control constructs.

I think we're talking about the same thing (you're more eloquent of
course:-)

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

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