At 2015-12-19 09:49 -0800, Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
>There seems to be something wrong with the type evaluation of Saxon 9.1J
>
>When I evaluate this:
>
> /.. instance of item()
>
>the result is:
>
> false()
I think that is correct, because /.. evaluates to the empty set, and
there are no values in the empty set, so how could the expression be true()?
I get the same with:
() instance of item()
>As item() is the root of the type system and every possible value is
>an item(), the above result means that /.. has type that isn't
>defined anywhere in the type system.
But /.. isn't a value, it is the empty set ... would item() include
the empty set as a value?
I do get true() with
() instance of item()?
And if the empty set were a value that is included in item(), then
one couldn't have a sequence type of "item()?".
I hope this is helpful.
. . . . . . . . . Ken
--
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/video.htm |
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/s/ |
G. Ken Holman mailto: |
Google+ profile: http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/about |
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal |
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
