Re: Re: Function memoization

Dimitre Novatchev wrote:

  Dimitre,

  I'm afraid I don't completely understand your response.  I
guess my poor English is the cause.

> > > Also, developers could have a flexible definition, so that
> > > memberwise comparison could be used for sequences up to,
> > > let's say, ten items and reference (ID) comparison will be
> > > used for comparing longer sequences.  This treshold can
> > > even be determined dynamically depending on the speed of
> > > execution.

> >   IMHO, it is a bad idea, as this could result in different
> > results when arguments are sequences of different size.  But
> > if it is needed, having the ability to set the comparator
> > let the developer the ability to get it.

> I guess you and Colin are referring to "functions" that
> return newly-created nodes...

  Not only.  Actually, I though only about how to compare
arguments.  I don't see how this is related to the above
sentences (using different comparison functions when the
length of the sequences are short or not).

> Let's put this straight in the specification and say that
> this is a "feature" of XSLT 2.0 of which developers/users
> must be warned and aware.

  What do you exactly mean by "this" ("this is a feature of
XSLT 2.0")?

> I believe any attempt to memoise such functions correctly
> will have mixed results -- so, let's just warn the users
> and do the good thing for the real functions.

  I must admit I don't really see what you mean by "such
functions", "mixed results" and "real functions".

  Sorry for my bad undesrtanding of English, and thanks in
advance for any explanation.

  Regards,

--drkm

























	

	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son interface révolutionnaire.
http://fr.mail.yahoo.com