Re: [xsl] Numeric top-level predicates in patterns

Subject: Re: [xsl] Numeric top-level predicates in patterns
From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:32:34 +0100
On 02/04/2014 18:05, Abel Braaksma (Exselt) wrote:

"Sibling numerical predicate" isn't one of your defined terms. I
assume you mean a predicate of [1] preceded by another numerical

I thought it would be clear from the definitions of sibling
predicates and numerical predicates. But indeed, I meant a numerical
predicate that is also a sibling predicate, that has the effective
static numeric value of 1 (the integer, not the string), such like

That is why I think Michael defined it as he did. [1] is only redundant if the preceding sequence is known to be at most 1.

So [1] is a numerical predicate and a sibling predicate in


but it is not redundant.


Current Thread