NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
XSLT (Score:1)
Nothing bizarre about that at all. :-) I can’t claim to be a decade-of-experience expert in XSLT as I can claim to be in Perl, but I am very good with the language, and I like it a whole lot. The syntax is dreadfully verbose, but at the semantic level – its computation model – it is extremely elegant. You can
Re: (Score:1)
I may have asked this before, but is it XSLT you like or XPath? I've never managed to like XSLT, but I do like XPath. The syntax isn't always perfect, but I can't think of improvements.
Re:XSLT (Score:1)
Both. XPath isn’t dreadfully verbose; XSLT is. (It would greatly benefit from a non-XML rendition of its syntax, just like RelaxNG has both an XML and a Compact syntax.) But the basic model (recursive node visiting) is a perfect match for XSLT’s job. The
apply-templatesdirective is basically amapwith polymorphic callback using XPath-based dispatch. That’s all there is to XSLT.Of course, most people write
for-each-heavy transforms instead, so they gain none of the elegance of this model. They would be better off writing that code in some general-purpose language. The result would still be cumbersome, but the awkwardness would at least not be exacerbated by the language having extremely limited facilities for general-purpose programming.(Do note that I presume EXSLT support, which largely rectifies the least tolerable aspects of the language. Bare XSLT 1.0 is no fun for any but tasks but the trivial – too many complexity management tools are missing.)
Reply to This
Parent