RE: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for)

> As I already pointed out in my reply to Dave,
>
> >   $departments map lower-case(.)
>
> would be ambiguous, as lower-case(.) is a value/string (the
> result of the
> application of lower-case() on .
>

Actually this syntax is perfectly feasible technically, and isn't far off
from something I myself proposed at one stage. Given that the data model
doesn't currently allow functions or expressions as operands to a function,
all higher-order functionality in XPath 2.0 is currently expressed using
operators that are built into the language. For example E1/E2 and E1[E2] are
both higher-order constructs where E2 is evaluated once for each item in E1,
and it would be quite feasible for (E1 map E2) to work the same way - if
that's how the WG decided to go. The last time it was debated, we decided
not to go there (Query folks are very attached to their FLWR expressions and
regard this construct as redundant): but a good argument would still receive
a hearing.

Mike Kay


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