Joe Kesselman <keshlam-nospam@c...> wrote in
<6JKdnQgjbOJwH57anZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@c...>:
> Pavel Lepin wrote:
>> I'm probably missing your point, but the same applies to
>> template matches (which seems only natural to me, since
>> both xsl:for-each and xsl:apply-templates define an
>> ordering on the current node list when invoked with
>> xsl:sort).
> 
> Thought it might but hadn't checked, and depending on what
> the user wants to do that might involve using modes to
> distinguish the cases where the limit is to be checked
> from those where it shouldn't be.
> 
> As I said: XSLT is a programming language, so there are
> generally multiple reasonable solutions to any "how can I"
> question.

Joe Kesselman <keshlam-nospam@c...> wrote in
<6JKdnQsjbOLtHp7anZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@c...>:
> (... Yes, I know, the "avoid for-each" philosophy. I'm not
> dogmatic about that.)

No, that wasn't my point in this case, actually. :-) It's
just that your explanation sounded (to me, at least) as if
position() takes ordering defined by xsl:sort into the
account only in context of xsl:for-each, so I wanted to
clarify that this applies whenever ordered current node
lists are involved.

-- 
It is rare to find learned men who are clean, do not stink,
and have a sense of humour. -- Liselotte in a letter to
Sophie, 30 Jul 1705