On Monday 04 July 2005 19:38, Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
On 7/5/05, Frans Englich <frans(_dot_)englich(_at_)telia(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi,
According to the XPath specifications are constructor functions and the
cast expression defined to be semantically equivalent. I wonder, why then
provide both?
Here my speculation:
* The two uses different default namespaces. Hence, it can be practical
on the stylesheet-writing level. But this aspect is not more than
convenience, right?
* A usability aspect of the language. One might argue that multiple ways
of expressing the same thing allows users to choose their way which fits
them the best(a psychological aspect). _For example_, the `cast as`
expression can be percepted as changing the type of an existing value,
while a constructor function can be percepted as creating a new value.
What was the reasoning for creating the two?
A "cast as" expression is a synonym for using a constructor function,
except in two cases, where a constructor function cannot be used:
- If the "?" must be used after the atomic type name to express that
an empty sequence is allowed.
- If there is no target namespace for the schema defining the type
(the type is in no namespace) -- in this case a constructor function
with no namespace prefix will bind to the default namespace of the
core functions (F & O).
Dimitre, Michael, thanks for the explanations.
BTW, this is the second question you ask, the perfect answer to which
can be easily found in Mike Kay's book "XPath 2.0 Programmer's
Reference" -- ISBN: 0-764-56910-4
Yes, I've heard only good about them. I'll definitely get a copy when I have
the money.
Cheers,
Frans
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--