Subject: Re: [xsl] would like to simplify my XSLT From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:06:07 GMT |
> Which, makes me wonder in what scenario's 'intersect' can be useful. when you want to know if a node is in two different sets. for example suppose you have a key that returns some nodes key('x','a') and some more nodes key('x','b') now, which modes are returned by both a and b. You can do this in xslt1 as key('x','a')[count(key('x','b'))=count(.|key('x','b'))] but it's rather more readable to say key('x','a') intersect key('x','b') > Yes. And that is basically what many of us showed in response to the OP. > But don't you find '$1 intersect $2' much more readable than > '$1[.=$2]'? Not much but then I've been using xpath1 for a long time, perhaps my senses are corrupted:-) > (if automatic node-to-value were applied for intersect). That woudl get very confusing, especially for text nodes (which many people use interchangeably with strings). You want it to be clear in the syntax wheter you are doing identity-equality (so two nodes are ony equal if they are the same node, or value-equality, where two items are equal if they have the same string value. David
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] would like to simplify my, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] would like to simplify my, Abel Braaksma |
RE: [xsl] would like to simplify my, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] many-to-many, Ronan Klyne |
Month |