Re: [xsl] function returning string with string-join()

[Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>]

> looks interesting, but ...


Yes, I mixed XPath 1.0 and XPath 2.0.

The correct XPath 2.0 expression is:

   concat('NO', ('x',$input)[number($input = (1,2)) +1], '.html')


--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play




On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt
<STAMMW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > B  concat('NO', ('x',$input)[($input = (1,2)) +1], '.html')
>
> looks interesting, but ...
>
> $ java -jar ~/Desktop/saxon/saxon9he.jar -xsl:ifn.xsl -s:3.xml
> Error on line 29 of ifn.xsl:
> B XPTY0004: Arithmetic operator is not defined for arguments of types
> (xs:boolean, xs:integer)
> B in built-in template rule
> Transformation failed: Run-time errors were reported
> $ tail -6 ifn.xsl
> <xsl:template match="*">
> B <xsl:variable name="input" select="."/>
> B <xsl:value-of select="concat('NO', ('x',$input)[($input = (1,2)) +1],
> '.html')"/>
> </xsl:template>
>
> </xsl:stylesheet>
> $
>
>
> Mit besten Gruessen / Best wishes,
>
> Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt
> Developer, XML Compiler, L3
> WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
>
>
>
> From: B  B  B  Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: B  B  B  B  xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: B  B  B  08/06/2010 03:44 PM
> Subject: B  B Re: [xsl] function returning string with string-join()
>
>
>
> B concat('NO', ('x',$input)[($input = (1,2)) +1], '.html')
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Dimitre Novatchev
> ---------------------------------------
> Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
> ---------------------------------------
> To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
> -------------------------------------
> Never fight an inanimate object
> -------------------------------------
> You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
> you're doing is work or play
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:37 AM, ac <ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would have done this one simply as
> > ...
> > <xsl:sequence select="string-join (('NO', if (string($input)) then string
> ($input) else 'x', ',html'), '')"/>
> > ...
> > with the feeling that string-join() is typically faster than concat() and
> string() faster than set operation with predicates, and that the overall
> instruction is easier to read and understand
> >
> > Am I right?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > ac
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Am 06.08.2010 um 11:15 schrieb Andrew Welch:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> When returning atomics (such as xs:string) you should use xs:sequence
> >>> and not xsl:value-of, as value-of will create a text node that then
> >>> gets "atomized" to an atomic.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks for that reminder... xsl:for-each-group and regular expressions
> are well settled in my XSLT2 mind-set, but xsl:sequence is more or less
> ignored.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If you didnt have the xsl:message call you could do:
> >>>
> >>> B  B <xsl:function name="my:filename" as="xs:string">
> >>> B  B  B  B <xsl:param name="input" as="xs:integer" />
> >>> B  B  B  B <xsl:sequence select="concat(if ($input = (1,2)) then
('NO1',
> >>> 'NO2')[$input] else 'NOx', '.html')"/>
> >>> B  B </xsl:function>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, if...
> >>
> >> I still try to find the best balance between writing some complex,
> possibly hard to debug multi-line XPath expressions or a tree of XSLT
> elements. Haven't found a general rule for that, and maybe there isn't.
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot,
> >>
> >> - Michael