Subject: [xsl] xpath2 functions returning () From: Mulberry Technologies List Owner <xsl-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:47:03 -0500 |
>To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Reply-To: burisch@xxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [xsl] xpath2 functions returning () >From: Curtis Burisch <burisch@xxxxxxxxxxx> >Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 15:49:21 +0000 > >All, > >>Xpath 2 seems to want to treat () special in many contexts. Most of >which >>seem unfortunate:-) The example above is one, sum() returning the >empty >>sequence instead of 0 is another (that seems to be much worse, and >will >>mean that you will almost always have to special case any value >returned >>from sum() to check if it is empty and if so replace it with 0) > >Isn't this just asking for trouble? Any programmer knows instinctively >that a function is declared to have a particular result-type. Having >sum(something) return a number *or* an empty sequence depending on what >is passed in is ludicrous. I can't think of a single valid reason for >this behaviour. In a generic pseudo-language, I'd expect sum('Fred', ' >Marmalade', 23) to be 23; and sum() to be 0. Are we prepared to teach >an endless string of newbies how to use sum() ?? > >Sorry for the 'me too' rant but it had to be said ... > >Best regards, >Curtis > >-- XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Re: . in for, Jeff Kenton | Thread | [xsl] Re: Assignment no, dynamic sc, Terje Norderhaug |
Re: [xsl] Re: . in for, Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: Where is the benefit ? (Was : R, Jeni Tennison |
Month |