xsl-list
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xsl] for vs. for-each

2021-03-15 10:03:19
Finally a good progress has been made on one of the proposals for XPath 4:
Retrieving a sequence of items from a given sequence based on a sequence of
indexes
 (https://github.com/qt4cg/qtspecs/issues/50)

With this proposal:
https://github.com/qt4cg/qtspecs/issues/50#issuecomment-799228627 ,
Michael Kay defines a concrete operator syntax and explores and evolves the
main idea to its logical boundaries.

I find the result to match exactly what I had wished for.

Thank you, Dr. Kay!

On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 12:48 PM Dimitre Novatchev 
<dnovatchev(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:



On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 11:55 AM Michael Kay mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com <
xsl-list-service(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> wrote:

 For 4.0, however, I would like to see better ways of accessing items in
a sequence by position, and there has been much discussion about how best
to achiieve this.


Yes, we already do have the index-of() function, but we need a reverse to
this:

from-indexes($vSeq, $vIndexes)

and this would produce a sequence with items each of which is the item of
$vSeq at position the value of the $index-value in $vIndexes, when
$index-value iterates over $vIndexes, ot more strictly:

     for $ind in $vIndexes
       return $vSeq[$ind]

Why reverse of index-of() ?

Because, for any $x in $vSeq it is true that

     from-indexes($vSeq, index-of($vSeq, $x))

is a sequence containing all $x items from $vSeq.

Or:

     $x eq distinct-values( from-indexes($vSeq, index-of($vSeq, $x)) )

Or if we had sets in XPath, then:

     set {$x} === set { from-indexes($vSeq, index-of($vSeq, $x)) }

And this can also be written as:

     set {$x}  ===  set { $vSeq => from-indexes( $vSeq => index-of($x)) }


There is even this proposal for an operator notation for the
from-indexes() function, but individual preferences at present seem to vary
too much in order to choose such an operator:

https://github.com/qt4cg/qtspecs/issues/50


Thanks,
Dimitre







Michael Kay
Saxonica

On 14 Mar 2021, at 18:04, Michael Müller-Hillebrand 
mmh(_at_)docufy(_dot_)de <
xsl-list-service(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> wrote:

Folks,

Given a variable with a sequence of values

<xsl:variable name="values" select="(1,2,3,4,5)" as="xs:double+"/>

these are three methods to report its content

<xsl:sequence select="for $i in 1 to count($values) return
$values[$i]"/>

<xsl:for-each select="1 to count($values)">
   <xsl:sequence select="$values[.]"/>
</xsl:for-each>

<xsl:for-each select="1 to count($values)">
   <xsl:sequence select="$values[current()]"/>
</xsl:for-each>

The first works as expected, the second does not, but the third
astonishingly enough gives me the same result as the first. Check it out:

https://xsltfiddle.liberty-development.net/ei5R4v8/2

I read/understand that there is a difference between a for expression
and a path expression, but since we can use atomized values in
xsl:for-each, I would like to see more similarity between for and for-each.

Should this be on the wishlist for XSLT 4 or do I have to
learn/understand some more concepts?

Puzzled greeting,

- Michael







-- 
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
To avoid situations in which you might make mistakes may be the
biggest mistake of all
------------------------------------
Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
-------------------------------------
To achieve the impossible dream, try going to sleep.
-------------------------------------
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
-------------------------------------
Typing monkeys will write all Shakespeare's works in 200yrs.Will they write
all patents, too? :)
-------------------------------------
Sanity is madness put to good use.
-------------------------------------
I finally figured out the only reason to be alive is to enjoy it.
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>