[Bug 10205] Issues in section 16.2 Basic higher-order functions

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10205





--- Comment #5 from dnovatchev@gmail.com  2010-07-21 14:38:53 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> The Formal Semantics provided us with a notation to declare such type
> constraints and therefore to standardize static type checking. We've abandoned
> maintaining the formal semantics partly because we didn't have the resources to
> keep it up to date, and partly because it didn't really succeed in its aim of
> standardizing the type checking rules, because implementations were given so
> much freedom to do different inferences. I'm not going to attempt to reinvent
> it.
> We do have a general permission for implementors to do early (optimistic)
> detection of type errors, and this is possible whether we describe the rules in
> English or in some formal notation.

It is one thing to rely on the intuition and ingenuity of implementors and
totally different thing to give them a simple, yet strict expression of type
constraints.

Whenever possible we should go with the latter. By not expressing the type
constraints succintly we are missing a big opportunity here. I personally think
it will be a job not well done.

-- 
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, 21 July 2010 14:38:55 UTC