Re: [xsl] Implementing XPointer Resolution With saxon:evaluate()

[Jeni Tennison <jeni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Eliot,

>> I guess it is implicit on the site, but I was intending that when
>> you have a function signature like:
>> 
>>   exsl:node-set(object)
>> 
>> it means that the argument is required and that it's an error if
>> it's missing. If it were:
>
> Hmm. That suggests that the Saxon implementation of node-set() is
> not conforming as it doesn't throw an exception when no argument is
> passed.

Yes, it does imply that.

> But I actually think that having "node-set()" return an empty node
> set is the better behavior--it's what I would expect from my
> experience with other programming languages and it makes it possible
> to explicitly create an empty node set.

OK, I'll forward on to the EXSLT mailing list and see if anyone has
any objections to making that change.

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list