Re: [xsl] Only child test

Wouldn't "last() eq 1" or "last() gt 1" be both the fastest and clearest?
ac

> ../*[2]
>
> This is the  first expression I thought about -- then saw that
> Вячеслав Седов has already offered it.
>
> Cheers,
> Dimitre
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Karl Stubsjoen <kstubs(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
> wrote:
> > Just curious how other's might approach a test to determine if the
> > current node is *not* an only child. This works fine but it feels a
> > little heavy to me.  Thoughts?
> >
> >                  <xsl:if test="(count(preceding-sibling::*) +
> > count(following-sibling::*)) &gt; 1">
> >                      <hr/>
> >                  </xsl:if>
> >
> > --~------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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>
> > --~--

--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--