- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:18:13 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3818 ------- Comment #9 from tim@cbcl.co.uk 2006-11-03 10:18 ------- "On the other hand, if they call a function that expects element(employee) and they say "treat as node()", then a static error seems perfectly reasonable. The rule is designed for the former case, which is much more likely to occur in practice." Any implementation not implementing static typ checking could not raise such an error, because "treat as" does not change the dynamic type of a value. The use of static typing can alert users to the possibility of unforseen dynamic errors. While I appreciate your viewpoint, my personal opinion is that I'd rather know of a potential problem at query compile time than at some point in the future when someone sends in the "wrong sort" of data to the query and triggers a dynamic error. We are pointing out the static type checking problems we find in XQTS in the hope that the formal semantics type checking rules can be made as precise and usable as possible. We are currently failing about 200 of the 14000 or so minimal conformance tests. I'd argue this shows that the static typing approach is fairly workable. The formal semantics specification gave us the confidence that XQuery/XPath had been well thought through.
Received on Friday, 3 November 2006 10:18:26 UTC