- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:50:15 +0100
- To: Michael.Kay@softwareag.com
- CC: public-qt-comments@w3.org
me> The fact that for expressions mean that it possible in XPath to bind me> variables to items but not to sequences is a very strange state of me> affairs. mike> You think we should allow "let" in XPath? On reflection, I think yes. mike>* provide a simple (context-based) FOR expression only mike>* provide a full FOR expression with range variables mike>* provide both A suggestion. * Remove the "full" for from Xpath. * Provide a simpler context based for, either something like "foreach" Expr "return" Expr or something more symbolic, Xpath-like syntax, I'd quite like Expr => Expr (with => taking the same precedence as /, and doing a similar job but not restricted to node sequences and not applying doc-order to the result) I know => is currently being used for something else.... * Provide let (with the current XQuery syntax) The advantages of this over the current situation are a) that simple mappings over sequences (by far the majority case in Xpath use, I would expect) are simpler, not requiring explicit variables at all. b) There is more functionality for more complicated cases as you can bind any value to a variable, not just non-sequence items. For nested for constructs where you need variables to save the context you'd do the equivalent of what you do already for xsl:for-each, something like foreach $lista return let $a . in foreach $listb return my:f(.,$a) David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 04:50:41 UTC