4540 2007-05-04 23:38:36 +0000 [UPD] Section 2.4.5 Transform: simplifying syntax 2007-07-26 22:09:40 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT Update Facility Working drafts PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 mrys andrew.eisenberg jonathan.robie public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 15016 0 mrys 2007-05-04 23:38:36 +0000 Functional why do we need copy? "transform $" is like "for $" unambiguous. The following looks closer to FLWR: transform $je := $e modify do delete $je/salary return $je And we would like to have the syntax changed in this way. 15085 1 chamberl 2007-05-14 04:29:58 +0000 The keyword "copy" was introduced for a reason. The ":=" operator normally does not make a copy. Instead, if there are nodes on the RHS, the variable on the LHS is bound to references to these nodes. The variable can then be used, for example, to navigate to the parents of these nodes. In contrast, the COPY clause of a transform also uses the ":=" operator but it makes an actual copy of the nodes on the RHS. The keyword is helpful to emphasize this distinction. --Don C. 15380 2 jonathan.robie 2007-06-12 16:15:11 +0000 What about something like this? copy $je := $e transform do delete $je/salary return $je That maintains the semantics of "copy", and puts the transformation keyword where the transforms occur. 15728 3 jonathan.robie 2007-06-29 14:42:38 +0000 In today's face-to-face meeting, we adopted the following syntax as our resolution of this issue: TransformExpr ::= "copy" "$" VarName ":=" ExprSingle ("," "$" VarName ":=" ExprSingle)* "modify" ExprSingle "return" ExprSingle Jonathan 15938 4 jim.melton 2007-07-26 22:09:27 +0000 Jonathan intended to mark this bug FIXED, then CLOSED