Re: Maps in exslt2?

> > The suggestion has been declined (probably my arguments were 
> > not convincing). 
> 
> You can probably assume that different people voted against it for 
different
> reasons. Some may have felt the arguments unconvincing; some may have 
felt
> that it was outside the scope of the 1.1/2.1 release (which some people
> think is almost finished); ...

I can understand arguments of the WG. That is why I'm talking now of exslt, 

and is aiming to binary trees. As items in binary tree algorithms do not 
play a role (they are just attached to the tree), implementation is 
modular:

Interface for a tree itself includes functions to:
create a tree (create, insert, remove);
navigate subtree tree (like left, right, size of subtree);

Map is a tree, which assumes that items are key, value pairs. Thus 
interface for the map extends tree with search, and create (create, insert, 

delete) according to a key.

Tree items should probably be expressed in terms of function items.
The sample implements items as xml elements, which makes it inefficient (in 

xslt 2.1 implementation is efficient if one counts operation complexity).

But my point was to open a discussion and to show that things are not so 
complicated and are very modular.

P.S. Sorry, if you got this message twice.
--
Vladimir Nesterovsky
http://www.nesterovsky-bros.com/