[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I would like that to be reasonably fast, which requires
> schema-based optimization. Naturally, this will *not* be fast when no
> schema or DTD is present.
As Mike just commented it requires -some- sort of optimisation, it
doesn't have to come from a schema, it could just come from information
on first use.
> This often involves quite straightforward structural errors which I believe
> *could* be caught by static analysis.
You keep saying this but there is no evidence yet that a typical
transformation of the complexity of the xmlspec dtd's could be typed
with any more specific type than document -> document.
As you compose functions (and in particular combine functions with
different return types in different brances of conditional expressions)
you gradually force the return type of the combined expression to be
more and more general.
> Would you really suggest using *none* of the type operators, or are there
> some that you think would be worthwhile if they were easy to
> implement?
Don't know about Jeni, but I would definitely prefer to see all these
operators out of XPath.
David
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
|
