Subject: Re: [xsl] An issue with XPath 2.0 sequences (Was Re: RE: Muenchian method, and keys 'n stuff) From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:33:05 GMT |
> Nevertheless, I'm reasonably comfortable with it. I think the place where it breaks down most spectacularly is when it is combined with the apparent desire to model SQL NUL values as () using a list, even an empty one, as a value does not really combine with the non nested list model, which means that these "NUL" values vanish at interesting times and lead to strange anomalies in accumulation functions like sum() and the loss of the useful lisp-like non-empty-node-set = true coercion that was in Xpath 1 but only works in Xpath 2 "most of the time". David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Re: Re: max of sum, Charly | Thread | RE: [xsl] An issue with XPath 2.0 s, Michael Kay |
[xsl] Re: Re: max of sum, Dimitre Novatchev | Date | RE: [xsl] Passing parameters to xsl, Ragulf Pickaxe |
Month |