- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:10:46 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5332 --- Comment #16 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2009-04-28 07:10:46 --- Jonathan, I don't believe your wording is equiavalent. The wording that we agreed on might seem contorted, but there was good reason for it: we wanted to make clear that "vacuous expressions" were defined extensionally (we provide a list of constructs considered vacuous), not intensionally (anthing that can be statically inferred to return () or error() is by definition vacuous). Your revised wording fails to capture this distinction. For example, someone could argue that under your definition, xx[0] is a vacuous expression: but it isn't. -- 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 Tuesday, 28 April 2009 07:10:57 UTC