[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: An issue with XPath 2.0 sequences (Was Re: RE: Mue
Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Several people already expressed their curiosity about what was the > reason to forbid a sequence to have an element-sequence. Well, i can see people getting uneasy about sequences containing empty sequences. In particular there may be conflicting expectations how to interpret a sequence containing an empty sequence in various boolean contexts. In my LISP days i've seen quite a few people hunting bugs ultimately caused by the difference between NIL and '(NIL). There may be also problems in how to handle empty sequences in unions and other functionality: should the result of (())|(()) be (()) or (()()) or even ()? Should sum((1 () 2)) result in 3 or NaN? Having said that, i still think it would be much cleaner to allow sequences containing sequences, even if it breaks some existing style sheets. Regards J.Pietschmann XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|