Re: Priorities of unionised patterns

I asked because  I know more from getting an answer than I would have
if I hadn't asked or if I had just experimented.

It looks like I had multiple submissions..... sorry about that ....
problems with gmail formatting.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You're asking as if we had a choice. But the semantics have been well
defined since 1999, so why raise the question now?
>
> And the approach you are proposing is very paternalistic. Disallowing things
because the user might not understand what they are doing is not generally a
good design principle, especially when it breaks orthogonality. (Treating the
separate parts of a union pattern differently was already a serious breach of
orthogonality, but that's a different question.)
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica
>
> On 9 Apr 2013, at 12:37, Ihe Onwuka wrote:
>
>> Given that the sub parts of a unionized pattern retain their individual
>> priorities
>>
>> <xsl:template match="A|B[*] ......
>>
>> What should be the semantic if you were to now specify a priority
attribute.
>> The instinctive reaction would be they should all get the same priority
but
>> there not a case for saying that it should not be allowed.
>>
>> The rationale would be to highlight that the subparts may have had
>> different priorities in the first place so making their priorities
>> homogenous might actually be the source of what would be a hard to find
bug.