[Versa] DOT

[Uche Ogbuji]

On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 17:04 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> On 9/27/05, Michael Olson <Mike.Olson at fourthought.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think I like this better.  we define (smaller names to cut down on
> > > typing)
> > >
> > > $versa:statement
> > > $versa:subject
> > > $versa:predicate
> > > $versa:object
> > >
> > > The last three are shortcuts onto the first.
> > >
> > > Then "." is defined as the appropriate value from the last three
> > > variables
> 
> I'm not certain I follow how the use of "." is consistent from
> everywhere else.  I've been assuming that "." refers to the data type
> associated with the query context (which could be: boolean, string,
> resource, list, set).

I think Mike's comment is just a different way of saying what you're
saying.

Yes, "." is technically always just the context value, but it so happens
that because of how query context is handled in a traversal expression,
"." happens to be the same as $versa:object in the object part of the
expression.  It's more coincidence than any change in "." semantics.


> Having not promoted statements to first-class
> Versa datatypes, I can see the need for a shortcut to access the
> 'current' statement.  But what does that mean generally - if it is
> used outside of traversal expressions?  And if it's limited to
> traversal expressions, doesn't that limit those shortcut variables?

Yes, that's what Mike and I were discussing in the follow-ups.  How far
would we go with such an idea?


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net                    http://fourthought.com
http://copia.ogbuji.net                   http://4Suite.org
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/