- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:36:13 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3818 ------- Comment #10 from mike@saxonica.com 2006-11-03 10:36 ------- "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..." No quarrel with that. But the vast majority of these tests are schemaless. Without a schema, mistyping an element name in a path such as /a/b/c is not going to give you a compile time error. The only thing it will give you is a cardinality error if you use it somewhere that a singleton is required. Nine times out of ten that error is spurious because the user knows that x/@price is actually a singleton, and having to assert it with a "treat" doesn't add much value. Static typing in the absence of a schema, in my view, detects more spurious errors than real errors, and it fails to detect most real errors. In the presence of a schema, by contrast, most real errors (such as mistyping an element name) can be picked up just as well (at compile time) by an optimistic static typing system as by a pessimistic one, while also reporting far fewer spurious errors.
Received on Friday, 3 November 2006 10:36:25 UTC