Re: !=, NOT IN and type errors

On 29/03/2011 10:13, Jeen Broekstra wrote:

[snip]

> This is not quite enough as it does not check that the operands are
> _valid_ typed literals. You'd still want "xyz"^^xsd:integer !=
> "foo"^^xsd:string to raise a type error, I think.

Minor addendum: it took me five seconds after hitting 'send' (I really
hate it when that happens) to realize that this of course _also_ holds
for the operator mapping table. Simply mapping != to 'true' will not
quite be enough, it still needs the proviso that both operands have a
correct lexical-to-value mapping.


Jeen

Received on Monday, 28 March 2011 22:10:01 UTC