- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:11:53 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4273 --- Comment #40 from zhen hua liu <zhen.liu@oracle.com> 2009-02-13 17:11:53 --- for commment #39, here are my two cents of static typing: in my implementation and customer experiences, I found supporting optimistic static typing is more useful. This allows me to leverage static typing as query optimzation techniques to eliminate as much dynamic typing as possible, report type errors that otherwise would be dynamic type errors statically, catch invalid xpath, etc. Such strategies work the best when the input XML node is either untyped or conforming to particular XML schema. That is, users have to be cooperative. However, for XML node is xs:anyTyped statically, then the value of static typing diminishes quickly and the implementation has to use dynamic typing technique. That is why I advocate the concept of optimistic static typing. -- 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 Friday, 13 February 2009 17:12:01 UTC