> Yes in the end, I ended up using global parameter values that are passed by
> the caller.
>
> Although XSLT is extremely powerful I do find that at this stage of its
> development it is lacking in areas that are common for other languages.
Before making a strong statement as this one must be sure he really knows
the
language well.
XSLT is a functional language and this makes it very different indeed from
any imperative language. The fact that XSLT lacks some most typical
"features" of imperative languages is not a shortcoming but in fact a big
advantage.
> I
> believe and hope that over the next several years that many of these issues
> will be addressed by the w3c organization.
They would appreciate any feedback now, post your proposals at:
public-qt-comments@w3.org
In your particular case a feature of XSLT 2.0 called "tunnel parameters"
will most probably meet exactly your requirements -- although one can do
without it in most cases.
> Until then there are always work
> arounds but in XSLT it seems they always require a lot of extra typing!
The language is what some people will consider verbose by design, but it is
very compact compared to XQuery.
The "trouble" with XSLT for some people is that it requires *thinking* ...
If one thinks before starting to code, then there isn't so much extra
typing.
Typying is also reduced to a minimum with the help of some very nice XSLT
IDEs, e.g. the one I'm using -- XSelerator.
Happy holidays,
Dimitre Novatchev.
Keith Chadwick - 28 Dec 2003 17:38 GMT
I was not slagging off the language Dimitre and as a side note, in my
opinion I have a fairly good handle on it at this point, not anywhere near
your level but getting better each day. As for IDE's, I have been writing
code since the late 70's and no matter how good the IDE is it is not as good
as writing the code by hand. Also any good code implementation takes
thinking, that is unless you are a point and click developer.
And yes the language is lacking in some regards, yes it is verbose but it
is still a young language and like any language will go through improvements
in each generation. If it does not then it will end up being replaced by
other languages.
By the way during this whole thread, which was a discussion on Param's, you
never mentioned until now the proposed "tunnel parameters" and until you
have done 'every possible system implementation' with the language you can
not make a statement like 'although one can do without it in most cases.'.
For one as learned in the language as you, that seems like a very narrow
minded statement.
Happy Holidays
Keith
> > Yes in the end, I ended up using global parameter values that are passed
> by
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> Dimitre Novatchev.
Dimitre Novatchev - 28 Dec 2003 19:51 GMT
Keith,
> By the way during this whole thread, which was a discussion on Param's, you
> never mentioned until now the proposed "tunnel parameters"
Then you don't read well...
> and until you
> have done 'every possible system implementation'
Nobody will ever have done this. Does this mean that people do not have the
right to share their experience? Let's then forbid any xslt-related forum...
> with the language you can
> not make a statement like 'although one can do without it in most cases.'.
I am responsible for the statements I make.
During the three years I have participated in xslt-related news-groups there
was only one single request from a single xslt programmer for implementing
implicit parameters (tunnel parameters) and nobody else expressed the
necessity of such a feature.
I did not say that tunnel parameters are bad to have -- just that they are a
"nice to have" but not an essentially necessary feature.
> For one as learned in the language as you, that seems like a very narrow
> minded statement.
This statement is specific and based on facts and experience.
Cheers,
Dimitre.
Keith Chadwick - 29 Dec 2003 16:02 GMT
I think we are both stubborn. If we where in a pub talking politics over a
drink the owner would kick us out due to are incessant arguing :-)
Cheers
Keith
> Keith,
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Dimitre.
Keith,
Just to clarify...
I did not say global parameters. I said global variables.
If I understand your scenario, you have data in your XML that you'd like to
use throughout templates, and the templates they call. That's an appropriate
scenario for global variables, and avoids excessive coupling between your
stylesheet and the calling code. Such coupling in some situations can be
hard to maintain.

Signature
Kathleen Dollard
Microsoft MVP
Author "Code Generation in Microsoft .NET"
> Yes in the end, I ended up using global parameter values that are passed by
> the caller.
[quoted text clipped - 155 lines]
> > > > Dimitre Novatchev.
> > > > http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL