- From: james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:28:58 +0200
- To: www-ql@w3.org
On Wednesday, Oct 22, 2003, at 05:22 Europe/Berlin, Per Bothner wrote: > james anderson wrote: > >> the difficulty with an approach which seeks to afford the >> prefix-namespace bindings indefinite extent, is that it is hard to >> understand how it should operate with situations like >> ... >> $E >> ? (rotatef (first (children (second (children $e)))) >> (first (children (fourth (children $e))))) >> NIL >> ? (push (first (attributes (second (children $e)))) >> (attributes (fourth (children $e)))) > > I'm not concerned about modifying nodes in-place, since that isn't > possible in XQuery, at least untl somebody defines update semantics > for XQuery. i am. whereby it is better to start with a model which is closed under foreseeable operations and which supports a straightforward serialization, than to require one which depends on the equivalent of futures to model names and which, evidently, leads to numerous "patch-up" mechanisms and iterations on serialization algorithms in order to get it right. if the leaf values are constants, the model is closed, and neither the semantics of graph combination and the mechanism for serialization is hard to define. ...
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 06:29:31 UTC