Subject: RE: [xsl] Two "Philisophical" questions about the language From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:31:02 -0000 |
> To those questions I would add another one: > why "if" xpath 2.0 expression demands "else" part? > > IfExpr ::= "if" "(" Expr ")" "then" ExprSingle "else" > ExprSingle The main reason was to avoid the infamous dangling-else ambiguity: if (c) then if (d) then e else f I personally would have preferred the solution of a closing token such as "end-if" or "fi". I do remember a half-day spent on if/then/else, where it was clear that no-one much liked the status-quo syntax, but no-one could come up with improvements that had majority support. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Two "Philisophical" quest, David Carlisle | Thread | [xsl] Re: Two "Philisophical" quest, Vladimir Nesterovsky |
Re: [xsl] [XSL] Two "Philisophical", Mukul Gandhi | Date | Re: [xsl] [XSL] Two "Philisophical", G. Ken Holman |
Month |