David Carlisle wrote:
Hi
It isn't just the cardinality rules that are different,
the way comparing values of different types are handled
differs as well, with = being more lenient than eq (and
even more lenient in backward compatibilty mode).
Yes I know. And I know that when I write either eq or =.
But I like to allow just the "lenientness" I need. Just the
genericity I need. Because it is that, when comparing two
atomic values, = is more generic, it accepts more values to
be compared than eq.
I need compiler and runtime help to detect my errors as
soon as possible.
For example, when I have to compare an untyped value taken
from a node to an integer, I will use eq and xs:integer().
More to type, but more checks. Until I know I need instead
to be lenient.
But I need more help than you from the compiler ;-)
Generally speaking I find the = behaviour more natural,
and easier to type (which is an important consideration:-)
:-)
Regards,
--drkm
___________________________________________________________________________
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions !
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur
Yahoo! Questions/Réponses
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--