W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > December 2003

RE: [F&O] C.2.3 eg:value-except

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:31:37 -0800
Message-ID: <EDB607C8AC991F40BE646533A1A673E8C5A38F@RED-MSG-42.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

David:
Thank you for your comment.  Both the implementations in C.2.3
eg:value-except use fn:distinct-values and so the result may be in an
undefined order.  The F&O taskforce discussed this on the 12/2 telcon
and decided that no change was needed.

All the best, Ashok

-----Original Message-----
From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Carlisle
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:53 AM
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Subject: [F&O] C.2.3 eg:value-except



The description (possibly copied from C.2.1 eg:value-union) says
 
" ...in an undefined order."

However both the xslt and xquery implementations given preserve the
input
order. Either the phrase should be dropped or fn:unordered() should be
used in the implementations.

The equivalent comment in C.2.1 does not have this problem as there the
implementations use fn:distinct-values() so do return things in an 
an implementation dependent (rather than undefined) order.

David

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 11:31:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:28 GMT