Finally, someone understands my pure, noble intentions! I aim to advance the state of the field through the following tactics: lob questions phrased so vaguely and researched so lightly that rational, compassionate people feel no choice but to respond lest they let me wallow in my very evident frustration and cluelessness. Then, when they provide their best answer, I reply even more belligerently. This pulls all the others into the discussion to sort out the mess. Rinse, lather, repeat. Eventually, through the mass of frustration, people start to piece together some vague sense of my original issue and acknowledge that there was some kernel of a point there. By that time I have moved on and don't care anymore, and tell everyone so. But look at what was accomplished. Field, advanced, suckers!
Other people might have stepped back from their initial sense of frustration, researched the issue, and made a polite request for assistance or comment. But that's no fun. And it's not my style. And if you don't like it, go ahead, call me on it. You'll be sorry. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 18, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Christian Grün <[email protected]> wrote: >> P-( ARRGH! This doesn't work either! )-d > > <x>{ ((: This ௐ ㋛ ௵ ㋛ ௐ works! :)) }</x> > ________________________________ > >> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Joe Wicentowski <[email protected]> wrote: >> In fact, while I (of course) was expecting you to read my mind, I don't even >> think I know what I wanted in the first place. On second thought, maybe I >> did. How about if you read it again, and remind me what I said. I can't be >> bothered to re-read old messages. In the meantime I'll just keep adding >> more nonsense to each new email I write and make sure I get the last word. >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 1:26 PM, Joe Wicentowski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I didn't ask for constructive suggestions. Read the original post. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Ihe Onwuka <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> If getting code, syntax, solutions and help with writing your program >>>> is your primary and sole objective I recommend StackOverflow.com. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Joe Wicentowski <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> I have a major bone to pick with the XQuery working group and all users >>>>> of the language, who must all be insane. >>>>> >>>>> When I'm trying to write a program in XQuery and it isn't working, I need >>>>> to blow off steam with a pissed off comment in the code right where the >>>>> error message appears. So I write my comment: >>>>> >>>>>> :( XQuery makes no sense to me!!! ):< >>>>> >>>>> But this raises new errors! So I try a different comment syntax: >>>>> >>>>>> :^( GRRRR! )v:< >>>>> >>>>> And another error appears! >>>>> >>>>> Why doesn't XQuery understand my comments? Change it now or I will never >>>>> cease to complain. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, and I'm not interested in code samples showing the correct syntax for >>>>> comments or explanations about the origins of whatever crazy comment >>>>> syntax they came up with. >>>>> >>>>> One final note to anyone who tries to be helpful: Shove it! >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Ihe Onwuka <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Adam Retter >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> You know full well that the design isn't going to be improved in a >>>>>>>>> subsequent release unless there's an issue that's a real stopper, >>>>>>>>> because people expect backwards compatibility. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://exist.2174344.n4.nabble.com/Signature-of-fn-filter-doesn-t-look-like-it-conforms-to-the-spec-td4662991.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure that this is making the point you think it is! >>>>>> >>>>>> It does. >>>>>> >>>>>>> snipped >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, I am sure you realise that you could write your own function >>>>>>> in XSLT, let's call it 'doc-or-empty' and use it in place of doc to >>>>>>> achieve exactly what you want. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes and I have no intention of doing so. >>>>>> >>>>>> See the original post here. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://exist.2174344.n4.nabble.com/Why-does-it-think-the-variable-is-not-set-tc4663027.html#none >>>>>> >>>>>> I knew that parenthesising the return expression would fix the problem >>>>>> but I didn't know why. Wolfgang's answer told me. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] >> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
