Having given it a bit more than a moments thought I prefer [.] because it makes it explicit a filtering operation is going on .
I think any opacity is consequent on the syntax - not the semantic . On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:18 PM, David Carlisle <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27/01/2014 15:14, David Lee wrote: >> >> I wouldnt do >> >> (readingMaterial|publication)/string() >> or >> (xs:string(readingMaterial),xs:string(publication))[.] >> >> unless you absolutely knew for sure that only 1 existed. >> If both exist you will get 2 strings. > > > > Yes sure, but same is true of the rather more opaque original > (xs:string(readingMaterial),xs:string(publication))[.] > I was trying to get same result (modulo , | change) :-) > > > David > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England > and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: > Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. > > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is > powered by MessageLabs. > ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
