- From: Bruno Feurer <dreamair1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:37:52 +0100
- To: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Tobias Reif'" <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>, "'Michael Kay'" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
> From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Jun/0082.html > > A11. fn:node-kind() > > It is easy to test the kind of a node using "instance of" (or "type switch" > in XQuery) > From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Jun/0111.html > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Jun/0082.html > "It also affects the cost of learning to use the language, which is > another important predictor of success." > > I very much support this requirement. Is > > for $i in 1 to count($s) return > if ($s[$i] eq $v) then $i else () > > easier to learn than > > index-of() > > ? Not at all IMHO; it's much more difficult to learn. Consistency is also a factor for the cost of learning. An example: First we have a data model specifying a node-kind accessor (http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#dm-node-kind), but then the corresponding accessor function is missing!? IMHO it's harder to learn something expected is not available, then a larger, but consistent model of a language. BTW: I can see the argument with "instance-of" for testing, but what's about the information itself? What if I'd like to use the node-type information within my content? eg. in XSLT <xsl:value-of select="node-kind()"/> or something alike? the alternatives like a big choice or a template matching mode seem to me pretty heavy and probably inefficient. Gruss, Bruno Feurer
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 15:07:08 UTC