Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendant-or-self::node()

Subject: Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendant-or-self::node()
From: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:19:39 +0100
2008/9/17 Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> At 01:43 PM 9/17/2008, Andrew wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> I'm actually not in favor of changing any of it. I think Mike is right when
> he warns us that such "improvements" generally turn out to cost more, and
> for longer, than they're worth.


sure, me neither, just musing :) that those two particular comparison
operators ( != and ne ) would've been better the other way around, as
most people would guess right with != and probably not even be aware
of "ne" until finding it as a solution to the problem of set
comparison.






-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/

Current Thread