- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:09:56 -0400
- To: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
- CC: David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>, XML Query Comments <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Hi Per, In our response to the February message, we didn't take your August feedback into account. I can see that there are several things here that still need to be addressed. Back to the Working Group ... Jonathan Per Bothner wrote: > > Jonathan Robie wrote: > >> We believe that implementors know how to test for circularity, and the >> exact technique used may depend on their environment. ... > > It's not a question of implementation, but of specification. In > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2004Aug/0026.html > I gave two examples where I consider the spec needs to be clarified > as to whether the examples are allowed or not. Saying it's > "implementation dependent" does not seem appropriate. > > > For instance, in > > an environment that does separate compilation of modules, they may > > need to use linking techniques that are less straightforward than what > > is needed in an environment that does not have this requirement. > > All the more need for the spec to state whether the examples I gave > are valid or not. > > I have partial implementation of separate compilation and module > imports, but I haven't finished it because there are still too > many questions about how modules are supported to work. E.g. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2004Aug/0030.html > > Note that the specification states that circularity raises a *static > error* so it should be caught at compile-time or at least link-time. > I don't believe it makes sense for mutually importing modules to > be compiled independently, as module imports must be processed at > compile-time. Thus there is no reason to defer circularity > detection until link-time. > >> Please let us know if you find this unacceptable.
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 00:10:31 UTC