Re: Propose to accept PR #449

On Mon, 2023-04-24 at 17:49 +0100, Norm Tovey-Walsh wrote:
> 
> In PR #449, Mike has applied the changes we requested during review
> of
> PR #420. 

I'm sorry that i missed this before.

I wonder whether map:pairs() could return not just a loosest-possible
record but, in the case of a typed map, a record of the appropriate
type?

E.g. for a map declared as
  map(xs:string, xs:double)
map:pairs() ought to yield record sof type (xs:string, xs:double).

But in 18 i see,
A ·key-value pair map· is an instance of the type record(key as
xs:anyAtomicType, value as item()*).

I'm not sure to what extent it would be useful, either in reducing bugs
or in improving optimization - for the latter, the implementation could
deduce it anyway, if it was statically known.

But either way, no objection.


-- 
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

Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2023 05:03:10 UTC