Re: [xsl] catching the last node still satisfying a condition

[David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>]

> If we agree the final result is an ordered (meaning indexed access, as in an 
> array) set (meaning no duplicate) of nodes. Right ?

No. The result of an XPath select is always unordered (hence set). All
these sets are subsets of an ordered set of nodes, but individual
selections do not have an order. So for example
in 
ancestor::[2]
2 selects the second ancestor in reverse order but
<xsl:variable name="a" select="ancestor::*"/>
$a is just the unoordered set of nodes: it doesn'r "remember" that it
was collected in any particular order.

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list