- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:21:43 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26559 Bug ID: 26559 Summary: Maps and Arrays: Analogies Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT Version: Working drafts Hardware: PC OS: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: XQuery 3.1 Assignee: jonathan.robie@gmail.com Reporter: christian.gruen@gmail.com QA Contact: public-qt-comments@w3.org I was asked why some of the new map and array functions have been named so differently although they do similar things, and why there is some redundant functionality. Here are the suggestions we came up with: * array:size vs. (no map:size anymore): it would be great if "map:size" was readded to the spec; count(map:keys()) is not very intuitive, at least to me, and it feels like a burden to loop through data if you simply want to know the number of entries. * map:for-each-entry, array:for-each-member: we could simplify the names to map:for-each and array:for-each, because the other functions are not named "array:filter-members" etc. either. * map:merge vs. array:join: although different things may happen under the hood, they could share the same name. "map:join" sounds like an intelligible alternative to me. * map:get vs. (no array:get): maybe we can get rid of this function, or (if it is required for some reason) additionally provide "array:get"? * map:entry: maybe we can give up this one, too? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 15:21:47 UTC