Subject: RE: [xsl] Why is RelationalExpr left associative? From: "Gavin Thomas Nicol" <gtn@xxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:43:02 -0400 |
> So the question is: why are these kinds of expressions allowed? Are > there any useful situations in which one can benefit? I agree that the grammar is quirky. I think the intent here is to allow typical recursive definitions of expressions, which typically allow something like 3 > 2 > 1 to appear. There are a number of things in XPath that are semantically invalid, but grammatically correct. Almost all of these are caused by some form of recursion, or inclusion of a construct to allow it's use in different contexts through recursion. "foo" 5 "foo"[5] "foo"[5] "foo"["bar"[4]] 5[4[3[2[1]]]] are legal according to the grammar. I've often thought of recasting the grammar... but it's probably too late now. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Why is RelationalExpr left as, Oliver Becker | Thread | RE: [xsl] Why is RelationalExpr lef, Mark Nahabedian |
RE: [xsl] invalid character (Unicod, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] recursive problem with fu, Dan Diebolt |
Month |