Subject: Re: [xsl] Only child test From: Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:40:40 +0100 |
> But my approach to programming is like a science experiment: try to make > as clear as possible what is done and why, on the grounds that it will > need not be changed later. This is not a mathematician's approach, who > will prove it correct (for the stated requirements and conditions at the > time) and move on with life :-) > A complication here is the use of programming idioms. An example in XPath 2.0 is (@status, 0)[1] For someone who hasn't encountered it before, this is obscure and perverse. For someone who has a few months of XPath 2.0 experience, it is the most natural way in the world of saying "the value of the status attribute, defaulting to 0 if absent". Michael Kay Saxonica
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Only child test, Liam R E Quin | Thread | [xsl] XSL-FO: keep-together.within-, Mario Madunic |
Re: [xsl] Only child test, Andre Cusson | Date | Re: [xsl] Only child test, David Carlisle |
Month |