- From: David Birnbaum <djbpitt@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:21:11 -0400
- To: public-ixml@w3.org
Received on Friday, 21 March 2025 20:21:26 UTC
Dear All,
Thank you all for the quick and helpful responses. Bethan's suggestion
provides a working interim solution, and the possibility of adding a "not"
operator to ixml sounds promising for the future.
Best,
David
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 9:04 AM John Lumley <john@saxonica.com> wrote:
> I still think an 'except' operator (see
> https://github.com/invisibleXML/ixml/issues/249 for a lot of discussion)
> is still worth considering and has plenty of use cases - many EBNF grammars
> use similar.
>
> For example in the XPath grammar we can very conveniently use:
>
> FunctionName: QName ¬ ("if";"element"....).
>
> It's not the same as a 'not' operator
>
>
> --
> *John Lumley* MA PhD CEng FIEE
> john@saxonica.com
>
Received on Friday, 21 March 2025 20:21:26 UTC