Re: [xsl] Replacing = with == and ===

["L2L 2L emanuelallen@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

.... Anyone know of any good books to read that concentrate mainly on teaching
xml, xslt, schema, xQuery, and xPath?

E-S4L

> On Aug 2, 2014, at 10:03 AM, "Wolfgang Laun wolfgang.laun@xxxxxxxxx"
<xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> To provide you with some unconstrained feedback, I'd like to let you
> know that
>
> (1) proposals to changes to programming languages are best made during
> their development phase, and for XPath and XQuery, that's over (until a
> next revision, if any);
>
> (2) the least you can do is to spell the language(s) correctly, moreover
> the addition of the version you are targeting is essential
>
> (3) any proposed change to the syntax should be unequivocally
> expressed the way syntax is in the original language document, i.e.,
> using EBNF or some such notation, with semantics being expressed
> in clear English,
>
> (4) a proposal for a change should outline the pros and cons, providing
> use cases and the sound rationale, based on experience and a
> solid knowledge of programming languages.
>
> Clearly, to change a programming language that has been around
> for several (more than five) years, with widespread acceptance in
> industry and dozens of tools basing their implementation on the
> established specs, in a fundamental aspect, even if it be a single
> operator, is ludicrous. As you have written that you aren't looking
> for  a response, or expecting a wholehearted no, this raises the
> additional question: cui bono? You've just wasted the time of the
> people following the list.
>
> -W
>
> On 01/08/2014, L2L 2L emanuelallen@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I feel that cause of the use of attribute using the equal sign, there
should
>> be a change... Or add on that will replace the equal sign in both xPath
and
>> xQuery. To test in a predicated if two nodes are equal; this to my opinion
>> should be use == and for a deeper test this ===.
>>
>> Thank you for reading. I'm not looking for a respond... Since it'll be a
no.
>> I'm just voicing my opinion on the matter... So please to respond on
telling
>> why not. Don't feel like reading anymore denial.
>>
>> Thank you for reading.
>>
>> E-S4L