Re: Re: Re: An issue with XPath 2.0 sequences (Was Re:

Completely agreed!

--- naha@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Quoting Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> > > > Nevertheless, I'm reasonably comfortable with it.
> > >
> > > I think the place where it breaks down most spectacularly is when
> it
> > > is combined with the apparent desire to model SQL NUL values as
> () 
> > > using a list, even an empty one, as a value does not really
> combine 
> > > with the non nested list model, which means that these "NUL"
> values 
> > > vanish at interesting times and lead to strange anomalies in  
> > > accumulation functions like sum() and the loss of the useful
> > lisp-like
> > > non-empty-node-set = true  coercion that was in Xpath 1 but only
> > works
> > > in Xpath 2 "most of the time".
> > > 
> > > David
> > 
> > Also as Jeni pointed out the weird case of sequences changing their
> > cardinality when mapped by a function that may return the null
> > sequence...
> 
> That's very dangerous.  It means that if one were doing several
> different 
> mapping operations from the same sequence the results could might be 
> incorrectly aligned.
> 
> I can't fathom how anyone could consider that as acceptable behavior.
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com

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