I applied and reviewed xml-functions-type-docfix-6.patch. Looks good to me.
I like the standardization (e.g. libxml2, node-set) and I didn't catch any spots that used the other versions. I agree that the <note> is appropriate for that block. It also looks like you incorporated Alvaro's feedback about sorting, or the lack thereof. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help get this accepted. Thanks, Ryan On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 5:45 PM Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> wrote: > On 03/27/19 19:27, Chapman Flack wrote: > > A column marked FOR ORDINALITY will be populated with row numbers > > matching the order in which the output rows appeared in the original > > input XML document. > > > > I've been skimming right over it all this time, and that right there is > > a glaring built-in reliance on the observable-but-disclaimed iteration > > order of a libxml2 node-set. > > So, xml-functions-type-docfix-6.patch. > > I changed that language to say "populated with row numbers, starting > with 1, in the order of nodes retrieved from the row_expression's > result node-set." > > That's not such a terrible thing to have to say; in fact, it's the > *correct* description for the standard, XQuery-based, XMLTABLE (where > the language gives you control of the result sequence's order). > > I followed that with a short note saying since XPath 1.0 doesn't > specify that order, relying on it is implementation-dependent, and > linked to the existing Appendix D discussion. > > I would have like to link directly to the <listitem>, but of course > <xref> doesn't know what to call that, so I linked to the <sect3> > instead. > > Regards, > -Chap >
