-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use "selector" instead of "matcher" #22
Conversation
I particularly welcome @gregsdennis's comments since he raised #20. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the matcher -> selector
changes are good. I'd just add the word "distinct" in the place indicated.
Reading through, I saw a few other language nuances that could be cleared up. I'll raise them in separate issues for discussion.
Each selector acts on its input list of nodes as follows. For each | ||
node in the list, the selector selects zero or more nodes, each of | ||
which is a descendant of the node or the node itself. The output | ||
list of nodes of a selector is the concatenation of the lists of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"distinct concatenation"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does distinct concatenation mean with duplicates removed? That term is unfamiliar to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Correct, no duplicates. I think mine currently regards the same value from different locations as distinct from one another, meaning it'll keep both.
It's worth discussing further, probably. Maybe just merge this for now, and I'll open an issue for it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I'd like to keep that as a separate issue. It's somewhat related to the placeholder we have in the spec about whether to remove duplicates from unions.
Fixes #20
See the rendered HTML version of this PR.