Valid points that were made and acknowledged - relative efficiency of
the algorithm being one and the inaccuracy of the original posted
solution (because it was psuedo code).
The rest was subjective commentary. The way to do it is to acknowledge
the good points in the other solution and then offer additional
perspective.
PS
I was guilty of linguistic jingoism in my last post.
A union (B difference A) was something I remember being taught to
parse in school at age 11.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Michael Kay <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com>
wrote:
For the cognoscenti who have access to 3.0 processors, the same group
of people that almost have nothing to learn from reading any of this.
I suspect most of the people who have upgraded to the latest standards did so
because they read about the new features on lists such as this one.
Do remember that when people like David and I respond to messages on this
list, we are not just responding to the originator, but to the whole list, on
the assumption that there will be many people who read your question and
think "I would like to know the answer to that".
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>
--~--