- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:40:46 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1549 Summary: [FS] editorial: 3.2.3 Static typing judgment Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT Version: Last Call drafts Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Formal Semantics AssignedTo: simeon@us.ibm.com ReportedBy: jmdyck@ibiblio.org QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org 3.2.3 Static typing judgment "the input literals '3' and '5' have type integer," Delete "input"? "so the variable $v also has type integer." You don't need to know that 5 has type integer to infer $v's type. "statEnv |- if Expr1 then ..." Add parentheses around Expr1 "The "left half" (the part before the :) of the expression below the line" Change "expression" to "judgment". "corresponds to some [expression/query], for which a type is computed." Well, except that the "statEnv |-" isn't part of the expression/query. Maybe say that the part between the turnstile and the colon corresponds to some expression/query. "The expression usually has patterns in it" Change "expression" to "judgment". "The expressions above the line" Change "expressions" to "judgments". "the expressions on each side" On each side of what? Maybe just change to "those expressions" (or "those sub-expressions"). "At each point in the recursion, an appropriate matching inference rule is sought" Maybe clarify what an "appropriate matching" rule is. (A rule whose conclusion has a structure that matches that of the premise in question.) "if at any point there is no applicable rule, then static type inference has failed" Not quite. It means that that particular avenue of inference has failed; however, an alternative avenue might succeed. And actually, I think you've written the spec so that, if failure happens, it shouldn't be for lack of a matching rule -- that would indicate incompleteness of the spec. Instead, failure of (an avenue of) inference should only happen when one is unable to satisfy the premises of a rule. Some of this discussion might fit back in section 2.1.5.
Received on Monday, 11 July 2005 22:40:49 UTC