W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > September 2003

RE: ORA-FO-UNORDERED 15.1.15 fn:unordered

From: Oliver Becker <obecker@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:46:59 +0200 (MEST)
Message-Id: <200309241546.h8OFkxU5017056@mail.informatik.hu-berlin.de>
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org

> In my opinion, unordered() must remain a function, because it clearly mark 
> the scope of the directive; that is, you know that all that is inside the 
> parenthesis will be potentially returned in a random order.

But then, please, don't call it a function if it is not a function.
(Dimitre, help! ;-) )

Could it be a comprise to change the terminology to something else
("directive" or whatever) but leave the grammar as it is?
For example, node() looks like a functions, but it is not.
The same way unordered(..) would look like a function, but it is in 
reality something very different.


|  ob|do        Dipl.Inf. Oliver Becker                             |
|  --+--        E-Mail: obecker@informatik.hu-berlin.de             |
|  op|qo        WWW:    http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~obecker |
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 11:47:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:56:49 UTC