- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:05:47 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4272 ------- Comment #5 from tim@cbcl.co.uk 2007-02-27 17:05 ------- Personally, I think I'd just go with raising no errors at type check time, and raising err:FOTY0012 during evaluation. At least that way it is consistent with non-static typing implementations.
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 17:06:02 UTC