- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 03:36:19 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5459 ------- Comment #2 from jmdyck@ibiblio.org 2008-02-12 03:36 ------- (In reply to comment #0) > > The second sentence reads: > Note that the fact that the type should be the least is cannot expressed by > the inference rule notation used here. > > Firstly, the phrase "least is cannot expressed by" makes no sense I agree, but that was already raised in Bug 1756 Comment #3, and fixed in FS erratum E014, by changing "is cannot expressed" to "is not expressed". > I assume we are looking for the least type satisfying the inference rule. Yes, where "least" means "lowest on the type promotion ladder". > Consider an argument of type numeric(), then the only type satisfying the rule > is xs:double. I don't understand what you mean. As far as I can tell, there is no type numeric(). Or xs:numeric. In the F+O spec, the functions in question are "declared" with a parameter type of "numeric?", but section 1.4 explains that this is just a shorthand for four declarations, each with a specific atomic type.
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 03:36:25 UTC