> > Anonymous functions would've been quite nice, but could your example only be > used for a single argument?
Yes. I think that's such a common case that it's worth having special syntax for, particularly as we already have "." as a symbol representing an anonymous variable, so we get a nice combination of concepts. (We do of course have syntax for the more general case already: it's just a bit verbose.) But of course, in the WG we would spend months discussing alternatives and might well come up with something better... Michael Kay Saxonica _______________________________________________ talk@x-query.com http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
