Customised data structures can be created together with XQuery maps and arrays.
But I find that a join operation would be needed before based on available
identification data.
>> See also:
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-31/#id-joins
>>
> You can do join _operations_,
I would appreciate further clarification for the distinction
which you present here.
> but you aren't doing them on tables
> (unless you did extra work to represent the tables hierarchically)
Some “tables” can be transformed into XQuery sequences, can't they?
> and there's absolutely no need for the keywords because the existing
> more general mechanisms work fine.
I see further development challenges in this area for the safe and convenient application
of join conditions (or constraints).
I guess that you prefer to refer to them as “predicates within steps” so far
(according to path expressions).
https://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-31/#id-predicate
> Use your functions to create maps where the keys come from that id
> element's string value.
Customised data structures can be created together with XQuery maps and arrays.
But I find that a join operation would be needed before based on available
identification data.
> (: bind to the sequence of id values :)
> for $id in $interesting_stuff1
> return
> (: run the function per-id :)
> my_fun:do_something($id,$interesting_stuff2($id),$interesting_stuff3($id))
>
> You could decide to skip the for clause and use
>
> return $interesting_stuff1 !
> my_fun:do_something(.,$interesting_stuff2(.),$interesting_stuff3(.))
>
> instead.
How do you think about to work without an extra identification sequence variable?
>> Will any further comparisons evolve for the provided functionality?
> Don't think so. I find the trick with XQuery is to not fight with it
> about being some other language.
>
> Internalizing the sequence concept takes work; …
Would you like to extend programming interfaces for the management of relationships
with various entities?
Regards,
Markus