Michael Kay
Michael Kay
No one seems to have mentioned that the proposed `X ~ Y` can currently be written `X => fn{Y}()`. I wonder if this is good enough to meet the requirement?...
How about going for `using { expr1 } { expr2 }` ?
I think if we had a construct called `context` then I would expect it to be able to control many aspects of the static and dynamic context (for example, namespace...
I think the current position is pretty much as Christian states it in the original issue. I think that the functionality is needed, and there are three possible solutions offered....
See also issue #553.
My current instinct is to drop map:replace and array:replace in favour of the syntax proposed in PR #832 ``` update map $m replace ?price with . * 1.1 update array...
This comes under the general rule that once you have read enough data to know that there is only one possible non-error result, you are not required to read extra...
>If $seq starts with a number, E[$seq] and E[position() = $seq] will become equivalent: I don't like that idea because it implies that if `$seq` contains nodes or untypedAtomic values...
It doesn't feel right to me to take something that is currently permitted and well-defined by the spec and turn it into an error, with no justification other than "tidying...
>isnt this effectively my suggestion that was deemed irrelevant? Sorry, I don't know which suggestion you are referring to. However, it's very much my personal style to reject new ideas...