[Bug 26559] Maps and Arrays: Analogies


Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |mike@saxonica.com

--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
I think the omission of map:size() from the spec is a mistake, though there is
prose that says it was a deliberate decision at some point, I'm pretty sure it
was reversed; the current XSLT 3.0 draft has the spec as agreed between the

Part of the reason for having different names map:for-each-entry,
array:for-each-member was that I think we were keeping options open at the time
that the functions might end up in the same namespace. I agree there's less
logic to it now.

I agree the argument for getting rid of array:get() applies equally to
map:get(); the only difference is that different people are involved in the
decision, since the map functions are in XSLT 3.0 which has been around for a
while and is now at last call.

I agree that the need for map:entry is weaker now that we have map:put. On the
XSLT side we've been keen that maps should be usable without new syntax, e.g.
as an add-on library to XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0, and this creates a requirement
for a more complete set of functions than are needed in an XPath 3.1 context -
this also affects the need for map:get().

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 17:01:00 UTC