David Carlisle wrote:

  Hi

> It isn't just the cardinality rules that are different,
> the way comparing values of different types are handled
> differs as well, with = being more lenient than eq (and
> even more lenient in backward compatibilty mode).

  Yes I know.  And I know that when I write either eq or =.
But I like to allow just the "lenientness" I need.  Just the
genericity I need.  Because it is that, when comparing two
atomic values, = is more generic, it accepts more values to
be compared than eq.

  I need compiler and runtime help to detect my errors as
soon as possible.

  For example, when I have to compare an untyped value taken
from a node to an integer, I will use eq and xs:integer().
More to type, but more checks.  Until I know I need instead
to be lenient.

  But I need more help than you from the compiler ;-)

> Generally speaking I find the = behaviour more natural,
> and easier to type (which is an important consideration:-)

  :-)

  Regards,

--drkm



















	

	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Dicouvrez une nouvelle fagon d'obtenir des riponses ` toutes vos questions ! 
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expiriences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Riponses 
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com