Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: Re: An issue with XPath 2.0 sequences (Was Re: RE: Muenchian method, and keys 'n stuff) From: naha@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:28:06 -0500 (EST) |
Quoting Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > 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 > > Also as Jeni pointed out the weird case of sequences changing their > cardinality when mapped by a function that may return the null > sequence... That's very dangerous. It means that if one were doing several different mapping operations from the same sequence the results could might be incorrectly aligned. I can't fathom how anyone could consider that as acceptable behavior. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Re: Re: An issue with XPa, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: Re: An issue with XPa, Dimitre Novatchev |
RE: [xsl] SGML to HTML conversion., Didier PH Martin | Date | Re: [xsl] Re: Re: An issue with XPa, Dimitre Novatchev |
Month |