If I were writing the language over I would never have '=' do set intersections or whatever the math term for "some item on the left side set is also equal to some item on the right side set"
Maybe something like operators "contains" or "has" or "oneof" or something ... but "=" ? That took me a long long long LONG time to get used to. of course now its way fun and I cant imagine it another way :) This one blows me too ... ( <foo/> eq <foo a="bar"/> ) => TRUE !!!! Yes I know why ... now ... but that took me about a decade to notice. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Liam R E Quin Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 4:59 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [xquery-talk] Everything is a sequence ...so .... On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 09:49 +0000, Ihe Onwuka wrote: > you can stare an awful long time at > > someString eq ('stringA','stringB') > > and not realise what is wrong. I don't know, the message Single item expected, ("stringA", "strinB") found. seems a good hint... But I don't think of eq and = as being the same. > I wonder whether it would have been better if eq were = and = were > =>, but then I guess you'd have to worry about how to deal with the > other comparison operators as well. We had to be compatible with XPath 1 at least to that extent. After all, if we were not compatible the Web browsers would never move to XSLT 2... (hmm). -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
