W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > August 2009

[Bug 7350] [XPath 2.1] Higher Order Functions Need Sugar

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:56:16 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MdrGa-0001iG-Io@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7350


Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jmdyck@ibiblio.org




--- Comment #3 from Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>  2009-08-19 19:56:16 ---
> Further, we introduce the rule that if values for the first K arguments
> are supplied and the function doesn’t have two overloads with more than
> K arguments, then the trailing underscores in the function invocation
> pattern may be omitted. This is always the case with a function that
> has no overloads. Thus, we will usually only write:
>     f:func(1,2,3)
> instead of:
>     f:func(1,2,3, ?, ?, ?)

This seems like a bad idea to me. There's no visual signal that
    f:func(1,2,3)
is a partial application (yielding a function) rather than a simple
function call (yielding whatever it is that f:func normally returns).

So if the user writes
    f:func(1,2,3)
*intending* it as a function call (mistakenly thinking that f:func takes
3 arguments), the processor wouldn't be able to raise static error XPST0017
(pointing out that f:func doesn't have a signature with arity 3), rather it
would have to interpret it as a partial application, which would probably lead
to a type error somewhere else (possibly far away from the actual mistake).


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 19:56:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:40 UTC