Subject: Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendant-or-self::node() From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:46:42 -0400 |
2008/9/17 David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>: > > >> the distinction between //foo[1] and (//foo)[1]. That has got to be >> the biggest downside of the way "//" is defined. > > and anyway any blemish in the definition of // is minor compared to != > which would have been better not being defined, since 9 times out of 10 > when it is used it does the wrong thing. >
true, perhaps != should be for atomic comparison and much lesser used "ne" for set comparison, rather than the other way around...
In Java using != to compare Strings gets underlined as a warning and you get a reminder to the use the method equals() instead, so maybe the same could be done here
Cheers, Wendell
====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendan, Andrew Welch | Thread | Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendan, Andrew Welch |
Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendan, Andrew Welch | Date | Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendan, Andrew Welch |
Month |