Re: Function annotations

> > I don't think it relies on the annotations being ordered.
>
> Exactly, the order is arbitrary.
>
> This is the function provided by BaseX:
>
> http://docs.basex.org/wiki/Inspection_Module#inspect:function-annotations
>
>
>
> > Michael Kay
> > Saxonica
> >
> >
> > > On 12 Oct 2016, at 11:08, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Note that in XSLT, the nearest equivalent to XQuery's function
annotations would be user-defined attributes on an xsl:function element. In
this case it would definitely be the case that the annotations have
distinct names and are unordered.
> > >
> > > We need to maintain the principle that the data model is common
between XSLT and XQuery.
> > >
> > > Michael Kay
> > > Saxonica
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 12 Oct 2016, at 11:00, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I've had input from a user who wants to get information about the
annotations on a function.
> > >>
> > >> Annotations don't seem to be part of the data model for function and
we don't have any accessor functions that reveal the values of annotations.
> > >>
> > >> My first thought is that it's easy enough to meet this requirement
with an extension function, and the obvious one would be something like
> > >>
> > >> function-annotations($f as function()) as map{xs:QName, item()*}
> > >>
> > >> But the same user points out that Saxon isn't allowing several
annotations on a function with the same name, although the spec appears to
permit this. If the data model allows several annotations with the same
name then this complicates the API.
> > >>
> > >> So, a question: is it by design or by accident that we don't have
any rule prohibiting multiple annotations on a function with the same name?
> > >>
> > >> If we do allow it, is the order significant? Would you expect the
order in which annotations appear to be retained in such an API?
> > >>
> > >> Michael Kay
> > >> Saxonica
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >