Subject: Re: [xsl] Numeric top-level predicates in patterns From: "Abel Braaksma (Exselt)" <abel@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 20:50:31 +0200 |
On 2-4-2014 20:32, David Carlisle wrote: > > That is why I think Michael defined it as he did. [1] is only > redundant if the preceding sequence is known to be at most 1. > > So [1] is a numerical predicate and a sibling predicate in > > $foo[true()][1] > > but it is not redundant. This is true. While I emphasized patterns specifically, Michael generalized it with his remark on cardinality. My original post was on sibling predicates, where [1] is added to the right of an existing numeric predicate, in which case it is a no-op, because the cardinality is already 0:1. But in your example, assuming we don't know statically that $foo is a sequence of zero or one, then indeed, it is surely not redundant. Cheers, Abel
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Numeric top-level predica, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] Numeric top-level predica, Dimitre Novatchev |
Re: [xsl] Numeric top-level predica, David Carlisle | Date | Re: [xsl] When to use text(), Eike Dierks |
Month |