Re: fn:slice()

Also, the definition of "arity" needs to be changed in all places where it
is presented, for example in XDM:
https://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel-31/#dt-signature
from:

" [Definition: A function's *arity* is the number of its parameters. ] The
number of names in a function's parameter names, and the number of
parameter types in its signature, must equal the function's arity."

to:

[Definition: A function's *arity* is the number of its non-optional
parameters. ] The number of names in a function's required-parameter names,
and the number of parameter types in its signature, must equal the
function's arity.

Of course, function subtyping for functions that have optional parameter
becomes a mess (Hope not to have such nightmares :)  )

Thanks,
Dimitre

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:01 PM Liam R. E. Quin <liam@fromoldbooks.org>
wrote:

> On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 18:14 +0000, Michael Kay wrote:
> > I think the bar for new syntax should be much higher than the bar for
> > new functions. Although there might be concerns about "using up" the
> > available space of function names, the space available for functions
> > is vastly greater than the space available for new operators, and we
> > shouldn't use it where a (higher order) function can do the job.
>
> Overall i agree, and especially about discoverability. But you are in
> effect proposing new syntax with named arguments.
>
> --
> Liam Quin, https://www.delightfulcomputing.com/
> Available for XML/Document/Information Architecture/XSLT/
> XSL/XQuery/Web/Text Processing/A11Y training, work & consulting.
> Barefoot Web-slave, antique illustrations:  http://www.fromoldbooks.org
>
>
>