RE: Recursive replacement

David 
>From my point of view the situation is a liitle bit more complicated.
1) When we evaluate the source sequence, it is not said that the nodes from
that sequence are copied. Thus they preserve their identity (am I right?).
Thus the inner-most <a/> after the conversion of the outer node possesses
the same identity as in original document. Thus the error shouldn't be
raised.
Regards, Leonid Novak
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Carlisle [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:42 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Recursive replacement
> 
> Martin
> 
>   Well, the constructor "element new-node {$p/*}" copies the contents of
>   the node $p, so the outermost <a/> node is replaced with
>   <new-node><b><a/></b></new-node>.
> 
> 
> Yes but the question is really about the inermost a node.
> Michael indicated that the table is intended to allow the operations
> that commute, so it depends a bit on what the definition of equivalence
> is.
> 
> If you replace the inner one first, then the outer one, then the effect
> is as if you just replaced the outer one, as you indicate above.
> 
> If however you replace the outer one first, when you come to replace the
> inner one, it's not there, so is that a merge conflict and an error, or
> do you just silently do nothing in which case commutativity is
> restored, and you get the same result as if you had done the operations
> in the other order.
> 
> 
> David
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> ________________________________________________________________________