RE: XPath 2.0: Collection-Valued Expressions (Was: Re:

> (I'm reporting the current situation here, not expressing any views as to
> whether I think it's the best approach. Personally I'm attracted by the
> flexibility and composability of higher-order functions, but I don't know
> whether they would be asking too much of our target user population. I also
> suspect that custom syntax makes life easier for query optimizers.)

Is it because their authors have difficulties in understanding the
functional-programming approach?

> The reason for having a sort() function is primarily for sorting a sequence
> of simple values, such as numbers, strings, or dates. For sorting a sequence
> of nodes, more powerful syntax will usually be needed, such as xsl:sort.

So we'll have two sort functions -- and in general cases where more than one
function with (almost) the same name exist, that do almost the same thing?

Mike, I'd never believe that this was your favourite solution and judging from the
current "results" it seems to me that the XSLT community is not too-well represented
or does not have sufficient convincing power in the working group.

If this is the case, can in the future something be changed for the better?
What can we, the mere mortals, do to help?

Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

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