[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: [xsl] [XPath 3.0] Why should I bother specifying the "arity" of a function that I invoke?

Subject: Re: [xsl] [XPath 3.0] Why should I bother specifying the "arity" of a function that I invoke?
From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:54:37 -0700

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So why should I bother specifying the arity? Is there a case where I *must* specify the arity?

Yes -- in *all* cases when a function is passed as a parameter.

This requirement follows from the fact that XPath (even 2.0) allows
for function overloads -- that is, for two or more functions to have
the same name, but different signatures. If the arity isn't provided,
then the XPath evaluation cannot disambiguate between different
possible overloads.

Even in the case when there are no overloads for a given function
name, new overloads can be written at a later moment, therefore, the
arity generally is required for all literal function items.

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
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? :)
I finally figured out the only reason to be alive is to enjoy it.

Current Thread