- From: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:58:05 -0700
- 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2004Aug/0026.html 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. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2004Aug/0030.html 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