- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:15:47 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1469 ------- Additional Comments From mrys@microsoft.com 2005-05-20 14:15 ------- I understand your comments, but so far we have followed the philosophy that I outlined earlier. And unlike the "optimistic" type checking, the static type checking is actually part of our specification. So I still think we need to make this change. Especially since in most cases, you can actually return a meaningful result (note that I only added one new error condition).
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 14:17:13 UTC