- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:15:43 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29080 --- Comment #13 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- We left this open today so we could give it further thought. I think it's probably true that arrays containing non-singleton members are a bit tricky to use, and that using arrays rather than sequences as the members of a "nested collection" is probably a good idea. Converting an array whose members are sequences to an array whose members are arrays is easy enough: array:for-each($in, function($m) { [$m] }) Turning the array of arrays into a sequence of arrays is also easy enough: $a?* So the proposed function could also be written: declare function array:members($array as array(*)) as array(*)* { array:for-each($in, function($m) { [$m] }) ? * }; Where a function has a one-line implementation, we need a very strong justification to add it to the spec. I think that's particularly true where the function is the composition of two simple operations that are easily expressed and likely to be often used in isolation: in this case, turning an array of sequences into an array of arrays, and turning an array of items into a sequence of items. I've been trying to devise use cases, and they all suffer from the syndrome "I wouldn't start from here": I would start with an array of arrays rather than an array of sequences. In looking for cases where you would naturally do something that produces an array of sequences, I can't find any where it wouldn't be equally easy to produce an array of arrays. So I'm not convinced of the need. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2016 17:15:46 UTC