[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] 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
|
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
|