W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2003

RE: XQuery 1.0 - 3.12.3 and 3.12.5

From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:26:52 -0800
Message-ID: <5C39F806F9939046B4B1AFE652500A3A049C556F@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>, <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

Another reason for the cast syntax is if you want to be allowed to cast
to an optional type (basically accept the ()). The constructor functions
do not return ().

Best regards
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay, Michael [mailto:Michael.Kay@softwareag.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 16:39 PM
> To: Svgdeveloper@aol.com; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: XQuery 1.0 - 3.12.3 and 3.12.5
> 
> 
> The "cast as" syntax is now almost entirely redundant - the one case
where
> it is still needed is where the name of the type clashes with the name
of
> a
> function. I think we're still trying to solve that problem, though I'm
not
> sure it's very high on anyone's agenda just now.
> 
> Michael Kay
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Svgdeveloper@aol.com [mailto:Svgdeveloper@aol.com]
> > Sent: 04 March 2003 14:50
> > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: XQuery 1.0 - 3.12.3 and 3.12.5
> >
> >
> >
> > The cast expression of 3.12.3 and the constructor function of
> > 3.12.5 seem to
> > be essentially duplicating the same functionality.
> >
> > It isn't immediately obvious to me why such duplication
> > should be necessary
> > or appropriate, particularly since the cast expression seems
> > sometimes/always
> > simply to add the words "cast as" before what would otherwise be a
> > constructor function.
> >
> > Is there a compelling reason for the continuing existence of
> > this seeming
> > duplication? Or am I missing something obvious?
> >
> > Andrew Watt
> >
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 01:27:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:24 GMT