RE: [xsl] Re: RE: Re: Re: An issue with XPath 2.0 sequences (Was Re: RE: Muenchian method, and keys 'n stuff)

["Michael Kay" <michael dot h dot kay at ntlworld dot com>]

> It is not consistent in this case! If my function returns three items,
> e.g. 1 () 2, there's no way to find out that 2 was the third item, not
> the second!

But () is not an item, and there is no way of returning 1 () 2, so the
question doesn't arise.
>
> A function may return a solution to a problem (as defined by
> an initial
> state) expressed in a sequence of items (e.g. a sequence of moves in a
> game or let's say a sequence of the XPath expressions (strings) of all
> nodes that satisfy a condition specified by the argument), or
> the empty
> sequence, in case there's no solution.
>
> In case a sequence of problems is mapped with such a function, there
> would be no way to pick up the individual solutions, even when every
> solution consists of the same equal number of moves.
>
> Please, do understand -- this is not just a matter of taste, this is
> lack of useful functionality.

I do understand: if you have a problem that requires a collection of
collections, you will need to construct a temporary tree, just as you have
to do in XSLT 1.0 when you have a simple collection. I accept that this may
be an inconvenience: the question is, how big an inconvenience, and how
often will it arise?

Mike Kay


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list