RE: Re: XPath/XSLT 2.0: What is the most efficient way

> 
> Thank you, Mike.
> 
> The name "exists" does not describe very well what the 
> function actually does. A far-better name is "non-empty", and 
> it is immediately perceived as the really complementary 
> function to empty().
> 

Actually, my thinking was the opposite. I think the meaning of
exists(@a) is fairly intuitive, whereas the meaning of empty(@a) is not.
But this just proves that choosing names that will enable people to
guess correctly what the function does is never easy.

Michael Kay


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