On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:04 PM, David Carlisle <dav...@nag.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/01/2014 12:55, Ihe Onwuka wrote:
>
>> Now thats me done. If it sounds weird to you , well the client doesn't
>> think so.
>>
>
> The client requirements are reasonable, but the code did not match that
> requirement
You posit you know what my client wants because I posted an example
(where's the emoticon for two raised eyebrows when you need it).
> The product attribute in your desired result is not a copy of any
> attribute in the source so you need to use an attribute constructor.
>
> <review product="{$t/@product}">
>
> _would_ be atomised exactly as you wish as, the content of an attribute
> constructor is implicitly atomized. You were copying into the content of an
> element constructor, and the contents of element constructors are not
> atomized by default.
>
>
I don't care David, because you miss the whole point.
The biggest problem is the confusing error message that results telling you
that you have duplicate nodes when you haven't explicitly coded any.
As I said earlier if attributes created in element constructors (happy
now?) were atomized then the programmer could see what has gone on and
accept or correct accordingly.
As it is unless he understands the effect the group by clause can have
(this is the same group by clause that Dr Kay said he was raising a
specification bug about yesterday) he is going to be baffled as to why he
is getting an error telling him he has duplicate attribute nodes because he
doesn't think he's coded any.
_______________________________________________
talk@x-query.com
http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
