CORRECTION! (was Re: Assignment no, dynamic scoping si

Doh! My general statement was correct, but my example was wrong. So,
Wendell, sorry to mislead you, but your example in fact was wrong too!

I wrote:
> Unless a predicate is bound (without intervening parentheses) to
> a node test, it is always evaluated with respect to a "forward"
> axis (the XPath spec arbitrarily chooses the child axis).

So far, so good.

> ancestor-or-self::*[@source][last()]
>
> Your example features both kinds of predicates.

Oops. No, *both* predicates in the above example are tightly bound to the
node test (and thus the reverse axis), because the Step production is as
follows:

[4]    Step    ::=    AxisSpecifier NodeTest Predicate*
   | AbbreviatedStep

where the Step itself may have more than one predicate. So [last()] will
select the last node in *reverse* document order (or first in document
order), not the other way around! To get the intended result (getting the
"closest" ancestor), you would either write:

ancestor-or-self::*[@source][1]

or

(ancestor-or-self::*[@source])[last()]

In this second example, the [last()] predicate is no longer tightly bound to
the node test as part of the Step production; the parentheses render it as a
predicate of the second kind--as part of the FilterExpr production:

[20]    FilterExpr    ::=    PrimaryExpr
   | FilterExpr Predicate

And thus [last()] is applied to the result of the expression to the left
with respect to document order, selecting the last node in document order.

Multiple predicates in a reverse step with the last being positional--that
has got to rank pretty highly on the confuse-the-experts list of XPath
expressions.

Evan


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