- From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 07:11:02 -0800
- To: Christian Grün <cg@basex.org>
- Cc: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com>, public-xslt-40@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAK4KnZcT4ga_xcTN0rcBWb_EVT1HWALLu5hGZQksLTG=qYfZ5w@mail.gmail.com>
> An alternative would be to introduce new functions: > > fn:next-sibling($node as node()?) as node()? > fn:previous-sibling($node as node()?) as node()? +1 for the functions vs. new axes. This can be conveniently combined with the arrow operator: $myXpathExpressionSelectingNode => next-sibling() Thanks, Dimitre On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:08 AM Christian Grün <cg@basex.org> wrote: > An alternative would be to introduce new functions: > > fn:next-sibling($node as node()?) as node()? > fn:previous-sibling($node as node()?) as node()? > > Similar to fn:has-children, we cannot perform straightforward node > tests. The requirement for such tests may depend on the use cases we > are trying to solve. > ____________________________________ > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:51 AM Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote: > > > > It's a fairly cosmetic change to get rid of a minor ugliness. People > often forget the [1] qualifier when they only want the immediately > following sibling, and the difference between > preceding-sibling::*[predicate][1] and preceding-sibling::*[1][predicate] > isn't intuitive. > > > > The problem of course is that you can never get rid of a danger point on > a well-trodden road by providing a new shiny road; the very people who fall > into the trap will be unaware of the new features. > > > > Michael Kay > > Saxonica > > > > On 2 Dec 2020, at 09:38, Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com> wrote: > > > > Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> writes: > > > > How would anyone feel about adding new axes next::* and previous::* to > > get the first following/preceding sibling? > > > > Or next-sibling / previous-sibling if people prefer long names. > > > > It would have to be that next::* means following-sibling::*[1] > > > > > > Can next::* ever be different from (following-sibling::*)[1]? > > > > Another two candidates are following-sibling-or-self::* and > > preceding-sibling-or-self::*, with hopefully obvious semantics. > > > > > > What are the use cases for these? > > > > To me, it feels like adding a new axis is a fairly heavyweight change. > > There are already quite a few axes and I think users sometimes struggle > > to understand them. I’m not saying we must not add new axes, but I’d > > like to be convinced that their utility justifies them. > > > > Be seeing you, > > norm > > > > -- > > Norm Tovey-Walsh > > Saxonica > > > > > > -- Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev --------------------------------------- Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence. --------------------------------------- To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk ------------------------------------- Never fight an inanimate object ------------------------------------- To avoid situations in which you might make mistakes may be the biggest mistake of all ------------------------------------ Quality means doing it right when no one is looking. ------------------------------------- You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what you're doing is work or play ------------------------------------- To achieve the impossible dream, try going to sleep. ------------------------------------- Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. ------------------------------------- Typing monkeys will write all Shakespeare's works in 200yrs.Will they write all patents, too? :) ------------------------------------- Sanity is madness put to good use. ------------------------------------- I finally figured out the only reason to be alive is to enjoy it.
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2020 15:11:25 UTC