W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2010

[Bug 9139] [XPath 2.1] Dynamic function calls and context

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:16:20 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Nmwrc-0000RW-4K@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9139





--- Comment #13 from Henry Zongaro <zongaro@ca.ibm.com>  2010-03-03 22:16:19 ---
(In reply to comment #11)

Sorry, Michael D. - I'm getting confused.  Reading comment #10, I thought you
were arguing that the result of the following should be "b.xq"

module "a.xq";
declare variable $f as (function() as xs:string) := fn:static-base-uri#0;

module "b.xq";
$f()

But reading comment #11, I think you're arguing that the result should be
"a.xq".  May I ask you to clarify?

By the way, in comment #5 I was going to add that I thought the current text
implied the result would be "b.xq" for an example like the one above, but that
I thought that would be undesirable behaviour.  I prefer the result "a.xq"
here, because my mental model is that the components of the static context for
a function literal are similar to the variables in the closure of an inline
function.  And I agree with what John Snelson says in comment #12.

Regardless, I'm not sure the WGs considered it one way or the other, and wanted
to make sure there was an explicit decision which behaviour to adopt.


-- 
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, 3 March 2010 22:16:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:59 GMT