Subject: RE: [xsl] Why is RelationalExpr left associative? From: Mark Nahabedian <naha@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:52:59 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) |
Gavin Thomas Nicol writes: > > 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. The problem is that the semantics implied by the grammar are different from the semantics that one might reasonably infer: that A > B > C is asking if B is between A and C. There are few programming languages that provide this semantics, but there are some. > > 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 > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Why is RelationalExpr lef, Gavin Thomas Nicol | Thread | [xsl] Plse Help! something to do w, Poh Justin KT |
Re: [xsl] recursive problem with fu, Dan Diebolt | Date | [xsl] Plse Help! something to do w, Poh Justin KT |
Month |