[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: // expanding to descendant-or-self::node()
2008/9/17 Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > At 01:43 PM 9/17/2008, Andrew wrote: >> >> 2008/9/17 David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>: >> > >> > >> >> the distinction between //foo[1] and (//foo)[1]. That has got to be >> >> the biggest downside of the way "//" is defined. >> > >> > and anyway any blemish in the definition of // is minor compared to != >> > which would have been better not being defined, since 9 times out of 10 >> > when it is used it does the wrong thing. >> > >> >> true, perhaps != should be for atomic comparison and much lesser used >> "ne" for set comparison, rather than the other way around... >> >> In Java using != to compare Strings gets underlined as a warning and >> you get a reminder to the use the method equals() instead, so maybe >> the same could be done here > > I'm actually not in favor of changing any of it. I think Mike is right when > he warns us that such "improvements" generally turn out to cost more, and > for longer, than they're worth. sure, me neither, just musing :) that those two particular comparison operators ( != and ne ) would've been better the other way around, as most people would guess right with != and probably not even be aware of "ne" until finding it as a solution to the problem of set comparison. -- Andrew Welch http://andrewjwelch.com Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
|
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
|