- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 14:34:51 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29693 Bug ID: 29693 Summary: [XP31] Order of result of SimpleMapExpr Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT Version: Candidate Recommendation Hardware: PC OS: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: XPath 3.1 Assignee: jonathan.robie@gmail.com Reporter: abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl QA Contact: public-qt-comments@w3.org Target Milestone: --- Under 3.15 Simple Map Operator (!) we say, among other things: "These sequences are concatenated and returned. The returned sequence preserves the orderings within and among the subsequences generated by the evaluations of E2; otherwise the order of the returned sequence is implementation-dependent." I'm not sure I fully understand this sentence. It seems to me that it says that: (1, 2) ! . can return (1, 2) or (2, 1), depending of order of evaluation. This would fit the "orderings within subsequences". But I am not sure what the "ordering among subsequences" means. For instance: (1, 2) ! ((3, 4), ., (5, 6)) Here I see three subsequences, (3,4), (.), and (5,6). Are that the subsequences this text refers to and their order with respect to one another should be maintained? I.e., are the following two outcomes both legal? (3, 4, 1, 5, 6, 3, 4, 2, 5, 6) (3, 4, 2, 5, 6, 3, 4, 1, 5, 6) If so, I am surprised about this rule, as I would expect the bang-operator to return the items in sequence order. Evaluation order is undefined, of course, but returned sequence should (I think) be in the order of the input sequence (the left-hand operand). In either case, may I suggest we either add an example, or a Note, that explains this more clearly? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2016 14:34:54 UTC