Re: Re: Function memoization

On Friday 14 July 2006 11:12, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
> >>>>> "Florent" == Florent Georges <[email protected]> writes:
>
>     Colin> This is no good. That means two functions calls that pass the
>     Colin> value 3 will not (usually) be memoized.
>
>     Florent>   Maybe it would make sense to say:
>
>     Florent>     - if the argument is an atomic item (or a sequence of
>     Florent> 1 such item, as these are indistinguishable), compare by
>     Florent> value (string() or data()?);
>
> Good.
>
>     Florent>     - if the argument is a node, compare with the "is"
>     Florent> operator;
>
> Good.
>
>     Florent>     - else (so if it is a sequence of at least 2 items),
>     Florent> compare by identity (the two sequences must be the same
>     Florent> one).  I think such a "sequence identity" doesn't exist
>     Florent> in the CRs.
>
> Re-formulate that as compare each item of the sequence of identity as
> determined above.

Perhaps it's better to simply map it into a call to fn:deep-equal()? Seems to 
simply spec'ing it.

(Not that I'm in favor or against the idea as a whole.)


Cheers,

		Frans