- From: Biró D. Botond <botond23@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 16:04:54 +0100
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAEmpVhMieMzVjdvHWVQCSXcVUAD=L0QDm_efLYZFUPx8CsQfdA@mail.gmail.com>
Dear All, What is the expected behavior if the arrow postfix operator is applied to a sequence containing more than one item? Does the semantic equivalence "$seq=>$f(…) is the same as $f( $seq, … )" also hold when count($seq) != 1? ex, ( 1, 2, 3 ) => avg() or ()=>count() In the last call working draft the wording for arrow postfix definition implies that a [single] item is expected, but don’t see why or if this restriction would be necessary. “[Definition: An arrow operator is a postfix operator that applies a function to an item, using the item as the first argument to the function.] If $i is an item and f() is a function, then $i=>f() is equivalent to f($i), and $i=>f($j) is equivalent to f($i, $j).” If the single restriction doesn't apply, then I suggest modifying the definition to reflect this. And a question related to operator precedence: currently it is not possible to use a node selection on the lhs of an arrow operator without wrapping it with extra parenthesis: $DAYS//@From => max() - syntax error ($DAYS//@From) => max() - ok is it planned for the arrow operator to be moved above the step expression(i.e. get lower precedence) so that one can use a node selection => without the need of the extra parenthesis? Best regards, Botond Biró
Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 18:28:08 UTC