- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:47:53 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10074 --- Comment #2 from dnovatchev@gmail.com 2010-07-03 13:47:51 --- (In reply to comment #1) > The other side of the coin, however, is to question whether the mechanism of > mapping operators to functions really serves any useful didactic purpose. It > was quite handy in the early days before we decided which functions should have > an operator syntax and which should only be available as function calls, but > that's history. This has a much more important aspect than purely historical. Right now it isn't possible to pass an operator as a parameter or return it as result of a function. This significantly limits the scope of the HOFs in XPath. This issue was raised in bug 7350 among other issues. I still don't see any compelling reasons why operators shouldn't be part of the set of normal HOF functions where they do belong. Should I file a separate bug for this problem? Dimitre Novatchev. -- 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 Saturday, 3 July 2010 13:47:54 UTC