- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:47:08 +0000
- To: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-xslt-40@w3.org, Martin Honnen <martin.honnen@gmx.de>
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 15:28, Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm with Martin here. > > Dimitre, are you going overboard with your higher order functions? > > Is it *widely* needed in xSLT/XPATH? > > > @Dave Pawson , Martin's comment was about the syntax of the function definition (which is now corrected), not about the usability and need of it. My comment was about a more common user need. I don't see it. > > In fact, I provided one use-case (the for efficient partitioning in the implementation of the quick-sort algorithm). > Such functions are defined in other languages and not for glossing them... > > For a few good examples of the partition function in Haskell, see: > http://zvon.org/other/haskell/Outputlist/partition_f.html > > > This isn't Lisp. > > In the past we used to say: "This isn't Javascript", but the implementors of Saxon.JS have been learning a lot from Javascript. > > In fact, in order to become a good, first-class citizen of the family of modern programming languages, XPath has a lot to learn from them. I think you've got it in one there. For me, XSLT, XPATH isn't a GP programming language, hence my comments / concerns. For me, piling on hof's is providing more and more reason for XSLT users to stay with XSLT 1.0 regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ.
Received on Monday, 30 November 2020 15:47:35 UTC