> I would call what you need for an efficient XSLT implementation "lazy > lists." They are never infinite but you would rather not pre-compute > them in advance. Often you use only the first item. Iterators probably > would be a good implementation technique. Well, if you don't want unmanageablecode, you could get the same benefit as stackless by iterating rather than recursing throuought an XSLT imlementation. But why not then go farther? Implement the whole think in raw assembler? What Stackless would give is a way to keep good, readable execution structured without sacrificing performance. XSLT interpreters are complex beasts, and I can't even imagining replacing 4XSLT's xsl:call-template dispatch code to be purely iterative. The result would be impenentrable. But then again, this isn't exactly what you said. I'm not sure why you think lazy lists would make all the difference. Not so according to my benchmarking. Aside: XPath node sets are one reason I've been interested in a speed and space-efficient set implementation for Python. However, Guido, Tim are rather convincing that this is a fool's errand. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4