It's what I expected. I haven't seen a rational explanation to expect anything different.
If it doesn't do that it's ok, but I wouldn't expect a language to give an error where it could do something different. The spec might say this will give you an error unless f you type it with one hand while somebody is giving you a Chinese burn. Ok thats what you have to live by, but don't have a go at someone for trying to figure out why it makes sense. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Michael Kay <[email protected]> wrote: > > I expect it to be atomized for the previously given reasons. > > It's a common expectation, but it's wrong. There is nothing in the spec > that encourages you to have such an expectation; you're just saying that if > you had designed the language, you would have done it differently. > > When the spec talks about an atomic value being expected, it's talking > about expectations that are informed by reading the spec, not expectations > based on how you would have liked the language to behave. > > Michael Kay > Saxonica > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
