Re: Propose to accept PR #449

> Unless someone objects in the next day or two, I propose to merge it
> without further discussion

I have these observations:

1. In
https://qt4cg.org/pr/449/xpath-functions-40/autodiff.html#map-composition-decomposition

it is said that:

" It is often useful to decompose a map into a sequence of entries, or
key-value pairs  "

This is still rather ambiguous and confusing to me, and this might be the
reason why I thought that "entry" is a synonym of "key-value pair".

This ambiguity can be removed by changing the text to:

" It is often useful to decompose a map either into a sequence of entries,
or into a sequence of key-value pairs  "

Or even better, move the definitions at the very front of this section,
before the defined concepts are referenced in the text.
=============================================================================================

2. In the table with all functions on maps for map:values the description
is: "Returns a sequence containing all the values present in a map, in
unpredictable order."
At the same time, for map:keys it says: "*Returns a sequence containing all
the keys present in a map*".
Note that in the latter the phrase "*in unpredictable order*" is missing.
This could confuse the reader that the keys are returned in some predefined
order.
This can be fixed by adding the missing phrase.
==============================================================================================

3. There are 2 functions that return entries: *map:entries* and *map:entry*,
but only one function for pairs:  *map:pairs*. We don't have a function:
*map:pair*
Is this an accidental omission, and if not what is the reason for this
decision?



Thanks,
Dimitre


On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 9:53 AM Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I’ve been trying to experiment with ways to streamline our work. Any
> item discussed in a meeting carries with it a minimum amount of
> overhead. I don’t want to impede discussion of items where it’s needed,
> but if we don’t spend that overhead on items where it isn’t, we can get
> more useful work done.
>
> In PR #449, Mike has applied the changes we requested during review of
> PR #420. It has one approval and it looks fine to me.
>
> Unless someone objects in the next day or two, I propose to merge it
> without further discussion.
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> --
> Norm Tovey-Walsh
> Saxonica
>