- From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:35:32 +0200
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, public-qt-comments@w3.org
Thanks. We are going to be looking at a proposal to merge constructors and
casts at our next meeting (with luck).
Michael Kay
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeni Tennison [mailto:jeni@jenitennison.com]
> Sent: 09 May 2002 12:07
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: F&O WD: Issue 16: Is a constructor more than a
> different syntax for CAST?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> You say that you want comments on Issue 16: Is a constructor
> more than a different syntax for CAST?
>
> I think that constructors are different beasts from casts
> since a constructor implies that a literal string can be
> tested and converted at compile time, whereas a cast implies
> that it should be tested and converted at run time.
>
> However, I don't think that the majority of users will
> understand this distinction if a functional syntax is used
> for constructors; I think that they will wonder why they can
> do xf:date('2002-09-05') but not do xf:date(@date). There's a
> similar situation with the
> processing-instruction() node test in XPath 1.0. Until quite
> recently, I believed that you could do
> processing-instruction($piName) whereas actually the
> processing-instruction() node test has to contain a literal
> string. I suspect that the only reason this isn't a FAQ is
> that people don't use processing instructions much.
>
> So I think there are two options. You could change the syntax
> for constructors, so that the string that's interpreted to
> construct the value doesn't look like a string, perhaps by
> using a different delimiter, for example:
>
> xs:date \2002-09-05\
>
> Or you could merge casting and construction in a functional
> syntax, and state that if the argument is a literal string,
> it's a static error if the string is not in the correct format.
>
> I think that merging casting and construction is more
> friendly to users, as it also prevents people from making the
> "mistake" of using a cast when they could use a constructor.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeni
> ---
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/
>
Received on Friday, 10 May 2002 09:35:43 UTC