Re: Re: A question about the expressive power and limi

> There are perl style {2} repeat clauses in the XML Schema regular
yes I know, I mean to give that as an example of a surface syntax issue
that doesn't change the language accepted. (Given the repeat clause
is a fixed integer you could always just explictly duplicate the
subexpression rather than using {2}.

> However, I suspect that test(), match() and replace() functions will
> still be specified, and those do need ^ and $ to make them useful, I
> think.

agreed.

> But the current-match() function could still give a tree
> representation of the match using rxp:match or whatever elements, as I
> suggested in a message to Marc recently.

yes, I'll play with that a bit more.

> What do you think?
not sure yet:-)


> We would have to address here the problem that Marc pointed out to do
> with how repeated subexpressions are captured...

probably you'd just have to do whatever perl does with the meaning of
numbered subterms that are repeated. 

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