> @Pavel do you mean the link I send before? > http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-semantics <http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-semantics> Yes! That’s it.
> What would be the difference between a proof and a test, in this case? Well, proving a specific case is usually very easy, assuming the proof isn’t too formal. A test is a general procedure. Shouldn’t be that hard, unless we try to prove its correctness (and depending on how formal we want to proof to be). > > 2016-01-28 13:35 GMT+01:00 Adam Retter <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > So you need an algorithm to test subsumption of path expressions (with the > > given limitations)? > > Yes. > > > Or just that one case? > > No I want to cover any case where the set which would be selected by > the path expression is statically known (i.e. no function calls). > > > > -- > Adam Retter > > skype: adam.retter > tweet: adamretter > http://www.adamretter.org.uk <http://www.adamretter.org.uk/> > > > > -- > W.S. Hager > Lagua Web Solutions > http://lagua.nl <http://lagua.nl/>
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
