Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for)

Jeni Tennison <jeni at jenitennison dot com> wrote:
> True - with most operators, both operands are evaluated with the same
> focus and the result is combined in some way.
> 
> But this isn't true for all "operators": the / "operator" for
> instance:
> 
>   table / row
> 
> does not involve getting the child table elements of the context node
> and combining them in some way with the child row elements of the
> context node. Instead, the expression 'row' is performed with a
> focus derived from the expression 'table'.
> 
> The "dereference operator" is similar:
> 
>   figref[1]/@refid => figure
> 
> Perhaps it's therefore wrong to call these syntactic constructs
> 'operators' (is there a better name?). My intent was that 'map'
> behaved in a similar way to '/'.

I guess a similarity with '/' will lead to confusion only -- the ***difference*** is
bigger as '/' produces a node-set and not (any) sequence.

Perhaps one would want to write something like this:

$departments/(lower-case(.))

It doesn't seem good to me.

Cheers,
Diitre Novatchev.





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

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