- From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:49:50 -0000
- To: "'Mark Scardina'" <Mark.Scardina@oracle.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Yes, I think we probably should. I think we should probably also consider restricting the ability to construct the function name at run-time, since we provide no capability to call functions whose name isn't known statically. Michael Kay > -----Original Message----- > From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Scardina > Sent: 16 February 2004 12:06 > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org > Subject: ORA-XS-370-B: Signature of function-available() > > > > SECTION 18.1.1: Testing Availability of Functions > > Shouldn't we add an optional argument (type of integer) to > function-available() indicating the value of arity? > User-defined functions may have same name but different > arity. If the check is only based on name, > function-available() may return true, when it should be false. > > Regards, > Mark Scardina > Oracle Corporation >
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 16:49:08 UTC