Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 01:43 PM 9/17/2008, Andrew wrote:
2008/9/17 David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>: > > >> the distinction between //foo[1] and (//foo)[1]. That has got to be >> the biggest downside of the way "//" is defined. > > and anyway any blemish in the definition of // is minor compared to != > which would have been better not being defined, since 9 times out of 10 > when it is used it does the wrong thing. > I'm actually not in favor of changing any of it. I think Mike is right when he warns us that such "improvements" generally turn out to cost more, and for longer, than they're worth. Can you imagine us having to sort out the "oh, that processor uses the old XPath 1.0 semantics" issues that would come up here? Write the caveats into every answer that we gave about anything? Posting lists, with painful pedantic explanations, of things that are the same and things that aren't the same? It falls into the category of Be Careful What You Wish For. Yes, we can point out flaws. But let's do it in an effort to mitigate their negative effects, rather than in the hope of scrubbing them away -- and then dealing with the unpredictable consequences of whatever was done in the attempt to do that. Cheers, Wendell
|
