- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:56:18 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7350 --- Comment #7 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2009-10-13 17:56:17 --- Perhaps, before we forget the reasoning, I could add a little bit more detail of the discussion that led to these decisions. On (1) the discussion was mainly about forwards compatibility. Allowing the arity to be omitted only in the case where there were currently no overloads would prevent such overloads being added in future without causing existing programs to fail. Making an omitted arity refer to the function with minimum arity would allow new arguments to be added, but would not allow an existing argument to be made optional, as happened recently with string-join. Desigating one of the overloads as primary requires a lot of syntactic machinery which we felt was not justified by the benefits. On (2) we felt that the existing family of op: functions was not especially well designed for this job. For example, instead of six functions representing the six operators op:greater-than, op:ge, op:lt, op:le, op:eq, and op:ne, there are generally only two or three. We felt we would need to redesign this interface if it were exposed to users, and this would be a lot of work. Meanwhile it was quite possible for users or third parties to build a function library on top of the operators and use this. On (3) there was a general feeling that the idea was a good one, and various discussions about the best way to do it (and the best characters to use - tilde in place of question mark made a strong showing). We decided to require either an expression or a "?" in each argument position so there was no ambiguity about which function was being referenced, regardless whether a function was being named explicitly or by reference to an expression returning a function item. -- 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, 13 October 2009 17:56:22 UTC