This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Regular expression functions (Was: Re: comments on December F&O draft)
- From: naha at ai dot mit dot edu
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com, Jeni Tennison <jeni at jenitennison dot com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:03:41 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Regular expression functions (Was: Re: [xsl] comments on December F&O draft)
- References: <001401c19a9b$8701b910$465169d5@pcukmka> <6363250867.20020111133137@jenitennison.com>
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
Quoting Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>:
[...]
> Is that because constructing *nodes* is expensive or is it the *links*
> between the nodes within a tree that makes things problematic? If the
> latter, then perhaps documentless nodes are a blessing ;) If the
> former, then it's a good argument for nested sequences, so you don't
> have to create nodes to provide structure.
>
> For example, given the problems that I described about processing x,y
> coordinates as pairs, there's a strong temptation to create pairs of
> coordinates as 'coordinate' elements with 'x' and 'y' attributes,
> rather than a simple sequence of integers. If sequences could be
> nested, I wouldn't feel that temptation.
I expect that in order to allow for nested sequences of <things>, the
data model would have to be extended to allow <things> to be first
class. As it stands now, how would it know whether when putting togenter
(to use lisp notation) the sequences
(a b) and (c d)
you meant to get
(a b c d)
or
((a b) (c d))
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list