The construct copy-of(.) is *grounded* because,
when executed, it result in nodes that are
not stream-processed.
Is that correct?
yes.
Now for a question please. Yesterday Michael wrote:
> Grounded expressions can be consuming,
Yes, I can see that. The copy-of(.) construct reads (consumes) the input and
results in nodes that are not stream-processed.
> and non-grounded expressions can be non-consuming.
That is saying there are expressions which, when evaluated, do not read
(consume) the input and yield nodes that are stream-processed, right?
Would you give an example of this please?
The expression ../@code is climbing and motionless
Other examples are a little artificial, but still exist:
* Non-streamable expressions such as preceding-sibling::* are neither grounded
nor consuming.
* The expression "." has posture that depends on the context item posture, and
sweep that is intrinsically motionless. So in a context like
child::x/name(.)
the expression "." has posture = striding, sweep = motionless
Michael Kay
Saxonica
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--