RE: Propose to accept PR #449

Editorial niggle: the comma highlighted below in either form of the sentence is not necessary. The separated portion of the sentence is not an independent clause.

From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 6:13 PM
To: Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com>
Cc: public-xslt-40@w3.org
Subject: Re: Propose to accept PR #449


EXTERNAL
> 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<mailto: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