Subject: RE: [xsl] Re: RE: Re: Re: An issue with XPath 2.0 sequences (Was Re: RE: Muenchian method, and keys 'n stuff) From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:17:06 -0000 |
> It is not consistent in this case! If my function returns three items, > e.g. 1 () 2, there's no way to find out that 2 was the third item, not > the second! But () is not an item, and there is no way of returning 1 () 2, so the question doesn't arise. > > A function may return a solution to a problem (as defined by > an initial > state) expressed in a sequence of items (e.g. a sequence of moves in a > game or let's say a sequence of the XPath expressions (strings) of all > nodes that satisfy a condition specified by the argument), or > the empty > sequence, in case there's no solution. > > In case a sequence of problems is mapped with such a function, there > would be no way to pick up the individual solutions, even when every > solution consists of the same equal number of moves. > > Please, do understand -- this is not just a matter of taste, this is > lack of useful functionality. I do understand: if you have a problem that requires a collection of collections, you will need to construct a temporary tree, just as you have to do in XSLT 1.0 when you have a simple collection. I accept that this may be an inconvenience: the question is, how big an inconvenience, and how often will it arise? Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Re: RE: Re: Re: An issue with, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | [xsl] Re: Re: Re: Re: An issue with, Dimitre Novatchev |
RE: [xsl] basic question about xpat, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] exclude-result-prefixes a, Michael Kay |
Month |