- 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