Gunther Schadow wrote:
> In fact I wonder if it's really buggy type casting? It seem to
> be reasonable for this machinery to cast the second operand to
> of the = relation to the data type of the first operand.

The first is cast to the type of the second, but it's actually (and I just 
learned this by looking it up just now) not due to the order of the operands,
but rather due to a precedence of types, as long as neither operand is a 
node-set:

If one is a boolean, the other becomes a boolean. If neither is a boolean and
one is a number, the other becomes a number. Otherwise (i.e., one is an RTF or
extension type), both are converted to strings.

Mike

-- 
  Mike J. Brown   |  http://skew.org/~mike/resume/
  Denver, CO, USA |  http://skew.org/xml/

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list