RE: Recursive replacement

>From my point of view the situation is a liitle bit more complicated.
1) When we evaluate the source sequence, it is not said that the nodes from
that sequence are copied. Thus they preserve their identity (am I right?).
Thus the inner-most <a/> after the conversion of the outer node possesses
the same identity as in original document. Thus the error shouldn't be
Regards, Leonid Novak
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Carlisle []
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:42 PM
> To:
> Cc:;
> Subject: Re: Recursive replacement
> Martin
>   Well, the constructor "element new-node {$p/*}" copies the contents of
>   the node $p, so the outermost <a/> node is replaced with
>   <new-node><b><a/></b></new-node>.
> Yes but the question is really about the inermost a node.
> Michael indicated that the table is intended to allow the operations
> that commute, so it depends a bit on what the definition of equivalence
> is.
> If you replace the inner one first, then the outer one, then the effect
> is as if you just replaced the outer one, as you indicate above.
> If however you replace the outer one first, when you come to replace the
> inner one, it's not there, so is that a merge conflict and an error, or
> do you just silently do nothing in which case commutativity is
> restored, and you get the same result as if you had done the operations
> in the other order.
> David
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> ________________________________________________________________________

Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 15:56:19 UTC