Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:email@example.com]
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Kay [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > If the query is
> > employee[salary > 100000]
> > then to use an index on salary, at the very least you have to know
> > that the index was built using the same assumptions about the ">"
> > operator as the query is using. So some kind of static analysis is
> > necessary. And some of the characteristics of the XPath 1.0 dynamic
> > typing rules (which say, for example that "1.0" = "1" is false, but
> > "1.0" <= "1" is true) become a major embarassment.
> And if we allow operator overloading to spanner the query
> semantics in the first place, I'm not wholly sympathetic to
> demands for static typing as a workaround.
Contrariwise, if operator overloading /is/ part and parcel of XQuery and
is in itself an important thing to have, then static analysis makes
Bill de hÓra