Subject: Re: [xsl] Better include them in the XSLT 2.0 spec (Was: Re: [xsl] Time for an exslt for 2.0?) From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 13 May 2005 07:57:25 +0100 |
>>>>> "Dimitre" == Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Dimitre> Or be prepared for all kinds of a nasty surprise Dimitre> following the fact that the value of >> Dimitre> my:f($x) is my:f($x) >> Dimitre> is generally not guaranteed to be true() >> It isn't, as if either function returns an atomic sequence, >> you get a type error. Dimitre> Sure, I must have added that my:f() is of type node()*. Not really. My comment was off the ball. Since $x may raise an error anyway. To be pedantic, my:f($x) is my:f($x) should always evaluate to true() in the absence of errors. But that can be taken as read. -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Dimitre Novatchev |
Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Dimitre Novatchev | Date | Re: [xsl] Better include them in th, Dimitre Novatchev |
Month |