[Bug 9139] [XPath 2.1] Dynamic function calls and context

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9139


John Snelson <john.snelson@oracle.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |john.snelson@oracle.com
         AssignedTo|jonathan.robie@redhat.com   |john.snelson@oracle.com




--- Comment #1 from John Snelson <john.snelson@oracle.com>  2010-02-24 18:01:37 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The rules for dynamic function calls should make it clear that no context
> information is passed from the caller's context to the callee's context other
> than that explicitly mentioned (the variables in the closure). This has the
> consequence that a dynamic call to a contextual core function like position()
> is not useful (in fact, it will always fail).

I'm not sure that this is a direction that the WG has decided on, although I
agree that it's probably the right thing to do.

> The only place where we say that the focus is cleared on a function call is in
> 3.1.5 Function Calls, rule 4:
> 
> "During evaluation of a function body, the focus (context item, context
> position, and context size) is undefined, except where it is defined by some
> expression inside the function body."
> 
> but this rule (appearing where it does) only applies to explicit calls on
> "user-declared functions": it does not apply to dynamic calls on user-declared
> functions, or to dynamic calls on inline functions, or to dynamic calls on
> built-in functions such as position(). It should apply to all these cases.

My reading of the spec would say that that sentence already applies to calls
("dynamic" or otherwise) on user-declared functions, of which inline functions
are a type. I agree that the behaviour for built-in functions needs clarifying
one way or the other.


-- 
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 Wednesday, 24 February 2010 18:01:39 UTC