Re: New axes?

  > 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.