RE: Arrow operator and focus-dependent functions

I could add a NOTE saying it's the same as for the equivalent expression.  I don't think we should do more. Feel free create a bug to track it if you wish.

Jonathan
________________________________________
From: Abel Braaksma [abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 9:51 AM
To: 'Public Joint XSLT XQuery XPath'
Subject: RE: Arrow operator and focus-dependent functions

> Is it worthwhile to mention error conditions for this operator? Currently,
> there is no mention of any. Even just saying that the errors are to be the
> same as for the "equivalent expression" would be helpful.

I meanwhile think my assumptions below are correct, but if you feel this warrants a Note or a fix in the existing text, I can create a bug report for this so we can track it.

Thanks,
Abel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abel Braaksma [mailto:abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 6:06 PM
> To: Public Joint XSLT XQuery XPath
> Subject: Arrow operator and focus-dependent functions
>
> I tested something like:
>
> string-to-codepoints('test') => last
>
> which originally succeeded in our implementation (it returned 4) because of
> the implicit argument. Under 3.16 we don't say anything explicit if there is no
> first argument (type error?), but we also say:
>
> [Definition] For a ·context-dependent· function, the parts of the context on
> which it depends are referred to as implicit arguments
>
> I would assume the above to be illegal, implicit argument or not. It is quite
> unclear what it should return if we were to allow it: the size of the sequence,
> or the last item of the sequence?
>
> Is it worthwhile to mention error conditions for this operator? Currently,
> there is no mention of any. Even just saying that the errors are to be the
> same as for the "equivalent expression" would be helpful.
>
> Cheers,
> Abel

Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 13:55:17 UTC