>> Concat with one argument can be useful if the argument is extended to >> allow sequences This can also be achieved with string-join with an empty separator. However, for the sake of regularity and convenience I feel that concat could also accept a string sequence in each argument (i.e. replace string? by string* in the prototype). Since concat is a special function (with unlimited # of arguments) we just have to rewrite: concat(s1, s2 ...sN) as concat( (s1, s2 ...sN) ) and then we can treat concat and string-join similarly, without additional complexity. > Michael: > Thank you for your comment. The WGs discussed this on 9/16/2003 and > decided to remove the zero and one argument version of fn:concat(). > > All the best, Ashok > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Rys >> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:35 PM >> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org >> Subject: MS-FO-LC1-034: fn:concat without arguments not useful >> >> >> Class: Technical >> >> Xpath 1.0 concat required at least two args. >> >> Concat() without arguments is of very limited use and should be >> disallowed (automatically generating code can easily recognize this >> case). >> >> Concat with one argument can be useful if the argument is extended to >> allow sequences and should be kept in that case. Otherwise it could >> still be cut. -- Xavier FRANCReceived on Monday, 29 September 2003 10:15:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:14 UTC