On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:10:46 -0000, Michael Kay <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com>
wrote:
So, what is the more direct representation of the empty sequence?
()
XPath 2.0 processors are quite likely to give you a warning when you write
"/..", or other "guaranteed empty" path expressions such as @text() or
@foo/@bar. Under strict static typing these are errors - they fall into the
same category as path expressions containing misspelt names such as
doc/chatper. XSLT 2.0 doesn't use strict static typing but processors can
still report warnings for any path expression that's statically known to be
empty.
Yes. I surely know about "()" and the reason I haven't been using it
in FXSL was that I wanted the two versions of FXSL (for XSLT 1.0 and
XSLT 2.0) to remain as much the same as possible.
With the latest additions, though, FXSL for XSLT 2.0 becomes very
distinct and different from its predecessor. Therefore, there's not
much to keep the same and I'll follow Mike's advice to achieve better
performance and to avoid some static type checking warnings.
Would it be interesting to you to be a member of the FXSL
project team?
It would be interesting, but there aren't enough hours in the day...
Mike, you just showed us the opposite. You're doing the best for the
project and you *are* de-facto member of the team :o)
Thanks for the great advice and for your time. We are proud to have
your attention.
And thank you for everything you have done through the years -- you've
been a great teacher to the whole XSLT community.
Cheers,
Dimitre.
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--