- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 05:48:08 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org, "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
- CC: Evan Lenz <evan@evanlenz.net>, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Mike wrote: > Yes. The strongest use case for adding LET is that it would allow > you to bind to the context node at each level of predicate nesting: > > chapter[let $c := @id return section [starts-with(@id,$c)]] Yes, that's very very useful. I agree with David -- adding let would allow you to get rid of specialised range variables and provide useful functionality on the XPath side without forcing people to write user-defined functions to achieve their goals. It's essential if you don't allow sequence generation with XSLT, and I think it makes a good balance in either case. > I don't like the syntax: it would be much nicer to write > > chapter[$c; section [starts-with(@id,$c/@id)]] > > but at least it gives the functionality. I like the shorter syntax (assuming that it would support assignment to any expression, not just the context node (though the shorthand for the context node would be lovely)). Like David, I would favour an symbolic infix operator for the foreach expression too (e.g. '=>' or '->') because of the parallel with the '/' operator. But with the amount of code we're looking at being tucked up in an XPath, keywords definitely make things a lot clearer. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 11:50:43 UTC