W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > April 2009

[Bug 5332] [UPD] Parentheses around () or fn:error()

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:02:42 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1LyjD8-0008S1-4J@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5332





--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>  2009-04-28 09:02:41 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> 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.


OK, I think I understand the intent now. But the definition the WG agreed on is
neither a clear extensional nor a clear intensional definition. An extensional
definition has to state what constructs are vacuous, and not just some examples
(outside the definition) listed as "for instance".

I suggest we hash this out on today's call.


-- 
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 09:02:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:27 UTC