On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:20 AM, David Carlisle <dav...@nag.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/01/2014 11:11, Ihe Onwuka wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:03 AM, David Carlisle <dav...@nag.co.uk >> <mailto:dav...@nag.co.uk>> wrote: >> >> On 08/01/2014 09:35, Ihe Onwuka wrote: >> >> > >> > <person>{$thing/@name}</__person> >> >> >> >> I can't begin to fathom the rationale for the exception or the >> value of >> such an exception over the simple rule of atomizing sequences if >> they >> appear in contexts where a value is expected. >> >> >> why do you think an atomised value is expected here? >> >> >> because the value you put in an attribute must be atomic....... >> > > If you add such a sequence in an attribute constructor then it is > atomized, but here you are copying a sequence of nodes into an element > constructor. In particular you are adding attribute nodes. > I may have confused things by getting my brackets wrong. If I did. <abc cnt='johnny'>be good</abc>/<def>{@cnt}</def> constructs a def element with a cnt attribute. the expression inside <def> </def> is an attribute constructor. I expect it to be atomized for the previously given reasons. > >> would you expect element nodes >> >> >> <person>{$thing/name}</person> >> >> to be atomised as well? (They aren't: this would add a sequence of >> <name> children to <person>) >> >> >> ......and the value of an element doesn't have to be. >> > > You are copying a sequence of nodes so that <person> becodes their parent, > attribute and element nodes are treated similarly. > It's not really what they are it's what the receptacle of what I am copying into expects. > > >> >> >> > It seems to me that it is >> >> just demanding the explicit call of the data function (which is >> exactly >> what I put in) for something it could just have easily handled >> implicitly. >> >> >> But this construct is designed to add attribute nodes, so implicit >> atomization would be undesirable. >> >> >> Why? It cannot be a placeholder for anything but an atomic value. >> > > No, as shown here it is copying attribute nodes. If $thing is > > <foo name="me"/> > > then > > <person>{$thing/@name}</person> > > is > > <person name="me"></person> > exactly > > but > > > <person>{$thing/@name/string()}</person> > > is > > <person>me</person> > > so by putting the string() function on the end it is no longer constrtucting an attribute. I have no problem with that. > You are (I think) saying that atomization should be automatic and you > should get the second result, but then you would not be able to copy > attribute (or element) nodes. > > No. I am saying that if the expression is an attrtibute constructor then atomization should be atomic. <person>{$thing/@name/string()}</person> is not an attribute constructor. It is an expression derived from an attribute.
_______________________________________________ talk@x-query.com http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
