- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:23:05 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5795
--- Comment #8 from Tim Mills <tim@cbcl.co.uk> 2008-06-26 12:23:04 ---
Consider:
declare function local:something() as xs:integer
{
1
}
(local:something())[928]
Do you think it is reasonable to return () here without evaluating the
function?
If we redefine the functions as:
declare function local:something() as xs:integer
{
fn:error()
}
do you still think it reasonable?
As I've said before, I think fn:error should have been treated in the way that
exceptions are treated in Haskell, since the error is a side-effect, and the
same goes for updating expressions.
As I'm sure you are aware, the reason fn:error can't be treated as item()* is
that static type checking would end up with type check errors all over the
place. e.g.
declare function local:maybe-error($arg as xs:boolean) as xs:integer
{
if ($arg)
then fn:error()
else 1
}
With fn:error() as 'none', this type checks correctly. Were it item()*, the
call to fn:error would cause a static type check error.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 12:23:40 UTC