Jez Higgins
f8d7701f12
Named templates now take precedence into account - templates with higher precedence are discarded
2010-10-07 22:48:03 +01:00
Jez Higgins
36a305d55b
fixed more warnings
2010-01-10 22:02:43 +00:00
Jez Higgins
74f8a55ed4
chmod -x *.hpp
2010-01-02 22:53:28 +00:00
jez
d7602d5a7d
Windows compatibility fix - it defines min as a macro, so use bracket function call to defeat it
2009-02-26 14:38:23 +00:00
jez
0a2220dbb0
added operator<< back in for debugging
2008-12-02 11:26:28 +00:00
jez
38d2783be3
Finally! Determining import precedence for templates is properly correct.
2008-11-25 12:27:33 +00:00
jez
fe40d482f5
Aha! The push/pop precedence thing is, of course, wrongly wrong. Need to assign the new precedence at the point we encounter the xsl:import, then set that precedence as current when we actually load it. I'll sort that out next time, because it's bedtime for programmers now.
2008-11-24 23:11:22 +00:00
jez
538a8969ad
seed the Precedence next generation differently, so can pop as well as just push precedence stack as we unwind imports
2008-11-24 22:26:58 +00:00
jez
6f39b28daa
Reworked current_generation stuff to use the templates' Precedence instead of a plain old int
2008-11-24 22:05:16 +00:00
jez
f610d739fe
More work on rejigging precedence.
...
Templates are now constructed with their precedence.
Variables are too, with a tweak to allow for the immediate evaluation of non-topl-level params and vars.
The execution context now no longer needs to track variable precedence, which is good because it will be getting it wrong anyway.
Corresponding simplifications follow to compliation context.
2008-11-19 17:26:07 +00:00
jez
8d0ce36da3
Rework variable handling to use the Precedence class. Currently it has the same (incorrect) behaviour as before, but it's all part of moving to towards (what I hope will be) proper import precedence handling.
2008-11-05 22:55:53 +00:00
jez
e8c0aaa416
Started work on refactoring precedence handling. Need to try and preserver the tree shape it forms, rather than a simple case of monotonically increasing precen
...
I mean decreasing precedence.
2008-11-05 02:57:18 +00:00
