- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:55:36 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1578 ------- Additional Comments From jmdyck@ibiblio.org 2005-09-01 02:55 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > > << > Note that this normalization rule depends on the function signatures, > which is used to obtained the types of the function parameters > (SequenceType1,...SequenceTypen). For user-defined functions, the function > signature can be obtained from the XQuery prolog where the function is > declared. For built-in functions, the signature is given in the F&O document. > >> > > That wording does not rely on the static environment which avoids the > cyclicity issue. Presumably you're talking about the circularity I raised in Bug 1577. However, that circularity was: normalization of a function call depends on the expected parameter types which (in the case of overloaded functions) depends on the particular signature used which is determined by the static types of the arguments which is provided by static type analysis of the arguments which is performed on the core-syntax versions of the arguments which results from normalization of the arguments. That is, the circularity was "Normalization depends on Static Type Analysis, which depends on Normalization". The circularity was broken at the former dependency, specifically "the choice of signature depends on the static types of the arguments", by eliminating any choice of signature. Thus, your comment: > That wording does not rely on the static environment which avoids the > cyclicity issue. is inappropriate for a few reasons: (1) The circularity is already broken. (2) Normalization's reliance on the static environment is not something to be avoided. After all, section 3.2.2 tells us that "normalization is always applied in the presence of a static context". (3) Even if you were trying to eliminate that reliance, you can't do it simply by avoiding the words "static environment". That is, to say: > For user-defined functions, the function signature can be obtained > from the XQuery prolog where the function is declared. For built-in > functions, the signature is given in the F&O document. and suggest that the normalization rule has access to this information by some means other than the static environment, that's just silly. Please reinstate the wording "this normalization rule depends on the static environment".
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2005 02:55:49 UTC