- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 07:11:40 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=30017
--- Comment #2 from Reece H. Dunn <msclrhd@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Michael Dyck from comment #1)
> (In reply to Reece H. Dunn from comment #0)
> > It would make more sense to define this similar to the XQuery 3.1
> > ArrowFunctionSpecifier:
> >
> > [127] ArrowFunctionSpecifier ::= EQName | VarRef | ParenthesizedExpr
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > UpdatingFunctionCall ::= "invoke" "updating"
> > UpdatingFunctionCallSpecifier "(" (ExprSingle ("," ExprSingle)*)? ")"
> > UpdatingFunctionCallSpecifier ::= EQName | VarRef | ParenthesizedExpr
>
> It's possible that might make more sense to some people. But note that
> UpdatingFunctionCall is fairly explicitly modelled after XQuery's
> DynamicFunctionCall, which also uses a PrimaryExpr to specify the function
> to be invoked.
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of things like:
invoke updating fn:put(...)
However, if I understand correctly, the 'invoke updating' here is not needed as
fn:put has the updating annotation (and any other updating function).
Likewise, it would be an error to use `$f(...)` if `$f` references an updating
function -- 'invoke updating' should be used here -- and `invoke updating
$f(...)` would be an error if `$f` does not reference an updating function.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 21 November 2016 07:11:47 UTC