W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > August 2004

Re: qt-2004Feb1159-01: Last Call comments on XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language XSCH-QL-016

From: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:58:05 -0700
Message-ID: <412BB9ED.5030405@bothner.com>
To: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect.com>
CC: David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>, XML Query Comments <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

Jonathan Robie wrote:

> We believe that implementors know how to test for circularity, and the
> exact technique used may depend on their environment.  ...

It's not a question of implementation, but of specification.  In
I gave two examples where I consider the spec needs to be clarified
as to whether the examples are allowed or not.  Saying it's
"implementation dependent" does not seem appropriate.

 > For instance, in
 > an environment that does separate compilation of modules, they may
 > need to use linking techniques that are less straightforward than what
 > is needed in an environment that does not have this requirement.

All the more need for the spec to state whether the examples I gave
are valid or not.

I have partial implementation of separate compilation and module
imports, but I haven't finished it because there are still too
many questions about how modules are supported to work.  E.g.

Note that the specification states that circularity raises a *static
error* so it should be caught at compile-time or at least link-time.
I don't believe it makes sense for mutually importing modules to
be compiled independently, as module imports must be processed at
compile-time.  Thus there is no reason to defer circularity
detection until link-time.

> Please let us know if you find this unacceptable.

Well, you didn't answer the original question ...
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 21:58:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:21 UTC