Re: qt-2004Feb1159-01: Last Call comments on XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language XSCH-QL-016

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.