- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:38:37 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5317 ------- Comment #4 from mike@saxonica.com 2007-12-17 18:38 ------- Thanks for the history. I can see the logic, though I do not think that tweaks like this will ever make static typing "usable". It seems a shame that we are optimizing the design for static typing when so few people appear to be implementing it. From the perspective of a dynamic typing implementation (or one that does optimistic static typing) this case should clearly be a type error: it's logically no different to the type checking applied to the operands of the "to" operator. Personally I think the answer to this is to fix static typing so that cardinality errors are always handled optimistically - that is, it should only a static type error if you can prove that the cardinality is wrong, not simply because you can't prove that it's right. The vast majority of cases where apparently reasonable queries fail static type checking seem to fall into this category.
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 18:38:43 UTC