W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ql@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: context across function calls

From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:53:48 -0700
Message-ID: <5C39F806F9939046B4B1AFE652500A3A0282CEE8@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Per Bothner" <per@bothner.com>
Cc: "Damien Fisher" <damien@sodatech.com>, <www-ql@w3.org>

The Working group has had discussions on this issues and the consensus
was that functions should not inherit the dynamic context (this will be
part of section 3.1.4 on function calls). The upcoming working drafts
should reflect that. If you find that the wording in the document does
not answer your concern, please let us know.

Best regards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Per Bothner [mailto:per@bothner.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:26 PM
> To: Michael Rys
> Cc: Damien Fisher; www-ql@w3.org
> Subject: Re: context across function calls
> Michael Rys wrote:
> > Since functions may be compiled outside of the context where they
> > called, currently the function definition below would not pick up
> > dynamic context. Instead I would expect such a function to raise a
> > compilation error about that there is not enough context information
> > provided.
> Yes, the 'context size' and 'context position' *values* are part of
> dynamic context, not available to the compiler.  However, the
> and last() functions are part of the static context, visible to a
> compiler.  Your argument is like say that the expression '10 + $x'
> cannot be compiled because the compiler does not have enough context
> information to do the addition at compile time.
> > Passing implicit contexts is dangerous and should not be encouraged
> > the language since it makes the function partially dynamically
> > (talk to old APL programmers why dynamic scoped functions are a pain
> > debug).
> However, the informal language language specification does define
> 'context size' and 'context position' to be part of the dynamic
> > Instead rewrite your function to take the position and last as
> Right, no one is arguing that my sample program is good style or
> be re-written.  The point is that the specification documents appear
> be inconsistent, in a rather important area, and no-one on the
> has acknowledged that this is an issue that must be resolved.
> --
> 	--Per Bothner
> per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 15:54:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:15 UTC