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

Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendant-or-self::node()

---

---

2008/9/17 David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>> the distinction between //foo[1] and (//foo)[1]. That has got to be
>> the biggest downside of the way "//"  is defined.
>
> and anyway any blemish in the definition of // is minor compared to !=
> which would have been better not being defined, since 9 times out of 10
> when it is used it does the wrong thing.
>

true, perhaps != should be for atomic comparison and much lesser used
"ne" for set comparison, rather than the other way around...

In Java using != to compare Strings gets underlined as a warning and
you get a reminder to the use the method equals() instead, so maybe
the same could be done here


-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/

---