Michael Kay
Michael Kay
See also issue #757
I wonder whether the following would work: (a) Allow user-defined functions to be in no namespace (including private functions in library modules, which currently have to be in the module...
It's an option, but I don't think it's a good idea.
The main reason we didn't have a simple mapping operator in XPath 2.0 was that we couldn't get agreement on a symbol that should be used. That's also why we...
I think there's mileage in the idea of having an unprefixed function name result in a search of multiple namespaces. But the devil is in the detail.
I would strongly prefer something that puts the expression whose focus is being defined inside curly braces, so it's completely clear where the effect ends. Something like `with (parse-json('data.json')) {...
I have proposed elsewhere (issue #700) using `!!` as an array mapping operator: ``` ["All mimsy were the borogoves", "And the mome raths outgrabe"] !! tokenize(.) ``` returns ``` [("All",...
>it’s very seems natural to create chains once you have such an operator. For XSLT I've been thinking along the lines ``` ... ... ... ``` where each step takes...
As a pipe operator, perhaps `~>`. But the different flavours of arrow become very confusing.
I'm inclined towards allowing ``` let . := EXPR return EXPR for . in EXPR return EXPR ``` primarily because the meaning is likely to be fairly obvious to the...