W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2015

[Bug 27668] [xslt 3.0] (@a, @b) is not streamable

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:19:11 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-27668-523-uHcGthuMaW@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27668

--- Comment #3 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> ---
(In reply to Michael Kay from comment #2)
> 
> In fact, the static type of an operand is by definition a U-Type, and the
> U-Type of (self::p, @lang) is U{element(), attribute()}. The intersection of
> this with U{element(), document-node()} is NOT U{}, therefore U' is U. I
> think there is no ambiguity.

On a fresh new read of spec and proposed changes, I think you are right. My
issue was with "the static type of X" which is not "a type" but defined as a
union of types.

The ambiguity was in my head, not in the (literal) reading of the spec.

> 
> >in the GSR we speak of "The static type T", while in fact this is 
> >a union of several types
> 
> The definition of the "static type" of an expression says that it is a
> U-Type. Would it be clearer if we called it the "static U-Type" of an
> expression?

Yes, I think this makes sense. It would make for a clearer read of U-type
related parts of the spec. Or perhaps instead of calling it a static type, we
should just always call it the U-type, as the words "static type" can easily be
confused with the declared type of a declaration or expression.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 10 January 2015 17:19:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 10 January 2015 17:19:13 UTC