- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:18:00 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29141 --- Comment #4 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- In response to comment #2, I think the question is, what can we say about the following expressions: (a) count($X) eq count(copy-of($X)) (b) every $x in copy-of($X) satisfies empty($x/..) (c) let $R := copy-of(.., .) return $R[1] is $R[2]/.. I think (a) should always be true (for any input $X) On balance I think (b) should always be true (i.e. all nodes in the result are parentless) That would mean that (c) is false: although you've already copied "." in the course of copying "..", you have to copy it again when processing the second item in the input sequence, because the first copy wasn't parentless. In response to comment #3, although one could specify copy-of and snapshot to be no-ops when applied to atomic values or functions, I don't think it's useful enough to justify a spec change at this stage. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 28 September 2015 10:18:03 UTC