Re: State variable test

I'm sorry to insist but we need one more information

if p:document-position() is the index (say the ith fragment given to
the #current port), then we need a connection to input sequence to
know from which doc in the sequence this fragment has been taken

Mohamed

On 5/16/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
> | Shouldn't $p:position and $loop_index be the same?  We say:
> |
> | "In contexts where a sequence of documents is being processed, for example,
> | in the test expression of a p:matching-documents, this variable returns the
> | position of the current document within the sequence. Numbering begins at
> | one."
> |
> | The for-each processes a sequence.
>
> Yes. Having thought about this some more, I think p:document-position()
> inside a for-each ought to be the same as the index.
>
> If we said that the p:document-position() inside a viewport was also the
> same as the index, then I think we could do away with the index
> altogether.
>
> Inside a loop, it would always be the same as p:document-position(). If
> a user wanted to be able to refer to the counter in some outer loop,
> he or she could set an option and refer to that.
>
> So now we only need:
>
>   p:episode()
>
> and
>
>   p:document-position()
>
> I like that better.
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Extinction, n. The raw material out of
> http://nwalsh.com/            | which theology created the future
>                               | state.--Ambrose Bierce
>
>


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €

Received on Friday, 18 May 2007 15:31:15 UTC