Re: New XPath draft

Here are some initial comments and questions:

*Quote*:

"*4.3.5 Static Function Calls*
The expanded QName
<https://qt4cg.org/branch/master/xquery-40/xpath-40-diff.html#dt-expanded-qname>
and
number of arguments in the static function call must match the name and
arity of a function signature
<https://qt4cg.org/branch/master/xquery-40/xpath-40-diff.html#dt-known-func-signatures>
in
the static context
<https://qt4cg.org/branch/master/xquery-40/xpath-40-diff.html#dt-static-context>;
if there is no match, a static error
<https://qt4cg.org/branch/master/xquery-40/xpath-40-diff.html#dt-static-error>
is
raised [err:XPST0017
<https://qt4cg.org/branch/master/xquery-40/xpath-40-diff.html#ERRXPST0017>
]. For this purpose the number of arguments in the static function call is
the number of positional arguments, plus one if there are one or more
keyword arguments."


 *Question*:
This is true for array-variadic and record-variadic functions.
For bounded variadic functions shouldn’t the number of arguments in the
function call be M + N, where M is the number of positional arguments and N
is the number of (all declared) keyword arguments?


*Quote*:

"my:keyword-function(x:=3, y:=4) denotes a static function call with one
argument: the effective value of the argument is map{'x':3,'y':4}."

*Questions*:
1. Isn’t this statement true only for record-variadic functions?

2. keyword-function()  may even be non-variadic, just a function with two
positional/required parameters and in this call the two positional
arguments are supplied by keyword. In this case, shouldn’t the number of
arguments be 2?

3. Shouldn’t the number of  arguments be 2 also for a bounded-variadic
function?
It is not  record-variadic or an array-variadic function.

*Quote*:

"4.3.6 Static Functions

%variadic("no") indicates that the function is not variadic. In a function
call, an argument must be supplied for every parameter in the function
signature. It can be supplied either positionally or by keyword, but there
must be a one-to-one mapping between arguments and parameter declarations. The
minimum and maximum arity are both defined by the number of parameter
declarations."

*Question*:
Isn’t it more precise and clear to say that in this case both the minimum
and maximum arity of the function have the same value, equal to the number
of parameter declarations?


*Quote*:

"%variadic("bounded") indicates that the function is bounded-variadic. A
bounded-variadic function declares zero or more required parameters and one
or more optional parameters. In a function call, an argument must be
supplied for every required parameter, and arguments may be supplied for
optional parameters: in both cases, the argument may be supplied either
positionally or by keyword"

*Question*:
Why is there no definition of what is the arity (minimum and maximum) of
the function in this case?"


*Quote*:

"%variadic("sequence") indicates that the function is sequence-variadic. A
sequence-variadic function declares one or more parameters, of which the
last typically has an occurrence indicator of * or + to indicate that a
sequence may be supplied.

 *Questions*:
1. Why sequence-variadic and not array-variadic?

If an array is used, then it can hold for example:
    [1, (), 2, 3]

and all 4 elements of the array will be accessible from the function call,
not just 3 as in the case when a sequence is passed:
    (1, (), 2, 3)

Thus having array-variadic functions (function calls) is more precise and
expressive, as shown in this example.

2. If the only reason is that fn:concat()  cannot be expressed/called as an
array-variadic function, can we have both: array-variadic and
sequence-variadic (the latter just for fn:concat() ) defined?


*Quote*:
"%variadic("map") indicates that the function is map-variadic. A
map-variadic function declares one or more parameters, of which the last
must be a type that accepts a map .

*Questions*:
1. Why not  “record-variadic”?
Unlike the map type, the new record type allows for static typing (and if
dynamic typing is really necessary, an “extended” record type may be
used). Thus,
using “record-variadic” will be an improvement over “map-variadic”.

2. Is there any example of an existing standard function that cannot be
expressed/called as a record-variadic function, but can be called as a
map-variadic function?


*General question*:
In the case when a function call can be array-variadic or record-variadic,
the caller may prefer to pass just one array (or a record) containing the
variadic arguments. In this case wouldn't it be good to allow the ability
to specify as a keyword argument this array (or record) and have a standard
name for these (for example "varargs")? I believe this will improve the
readability of the code.

Thanks in advance for any answers and explanations,

Dimitre

P.S. A pdf version of this message is attached in case it isn't
well-readable from the W3 web server.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:52 AM Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:

> I've posted a new draft for XPath 4.0 at
>
> https://qt4cg.org/branch/master/xquery-40/xpath-40-diff.html
>
> This include first attempts to draft spec prose for variadic function
> calls, and for applying the lookup operator to atomic values as suggested
> by Liam (current-date()?year syntax).
>
> Michael Kay
> 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.