Subject: RE: [xsl] Re: XPath/XSLT 2.0: What is the most efficient way to find if a sequence is empty? From: "Michael Kay" <mhk@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:35:10 +0100 |
> > Thank you, Mike. > > The name "exists" does not describe very well what the > function actually does. A far-better name is "non-empty", and > it is immediately perceived as the really complementary > function to empty(). > Actually, my thinking was the opposite. I think the meaning of exists(@a) is fairly intuitive, whereas the meaning of empty(@a) is not. But this just proves that choosing names that will enable people to guess correctly what the function does is never easy. Michael Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Re: XPath/XSLT 2.0: What is t, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | [xsl] Trying to use Docbook transfo, Bob Foster |
RE: [xsl] XPath 2.0: Problems with , Michael Kay | Date | [xsl] Trying to use Docbook transfo, Bob Foster |
Month |