- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:02:42 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@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