W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > June 2004

RE: Casting/constructors should accept the empty sequence

From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:16:10 +0100
To: "'Jim Melton'" <jim.melton@acm.org>, "'Michael Rys'" <mrys@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'Ashok Malhotra'" <ashokmalhotra@myself.com>, "'Ashok Malhotra'" <ashokmalhotra@alum.mit.edu>, "'Don Chamberlin'" <chamberl@almaden.ibm.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040609091647.8A953A1268@frink.w3.org>

> Scary, but I agree with Michael (Rys).
>     Jim
> At 12:26 AM 6/1/2004 Tuesday, Michael Rys wrote:
> >I don't like xs:int?().
> >
> >
> >I think using
> >
> >Expr cast as T
> >Expr cast as T?
> >
> >And T(Expr) as a synonym for the later quite acceptable and 
> do not see a
> >reason to change.

I have concerns about making this change. If a function is declared to
accept an argument declared as "$i as xs:integer", then I don't think
calling it with xs:integer(foo) should ever fail with a type error. Our
normal convention is that when a type name is used with no occurrence
indicator, it means "exactly one".

Michael Kay 
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 05:16:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:19 UTC