Subject: Re: [xsl] catching the last node still satisfying a condition From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 15:52:07 +0100 |
> Are successive predicate legal ? yes. There are examples of this in the spec are there not? >And are they evaluated as > foo[position() < $limit AND bar AND last()] or as > (((foo[position() < $limit])[bar])[last()]) ? Neither. foo[position() < $limit AND bar AND last()] isn't what you meant, you meant foo[position() < $limit and bar and position()=last()] in this one last() would return the number of foo elements. (((foo[position() < $limit])[bar])[last()]) In this case this is equivalent to foo[position() < $limit][bar][last()] as foo is short for child::foo which is a forward axis. But for a reverse axis, ancestor::foo[position() < $limit][bar][last()] last() and position() relate to reverse document ordering but in (((foo[position() < $limit])[bar])[last()]) last() and position() relate to document ordering _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] catching the last node st, Guillaume Rousse | Thread | Re: [xsl] catching the last node st, Guillaume Rousse |
Re: [xsl] catching the last node st, Dimitar Peikov | Date | RE: [xsl] catching the last node st, Michael Kay |
Month |