- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:38:53 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10205 --- Comment #5 from dnovatchev@gmail.com 2010-07-21 14:38:53 --- (In reply to comment #4) > The Formal Semantics provided us with a notation to declare such type > constraints and therefore to standardize static type checking. We've abandoned > maintaining the formal semantics partly because we didn't have the resources to > keep it up to date, and partly because it didn't really succeed in its aim of > standardizing the type checking rules, because implementations were given so > much freedom to do different inferences. I'm not going to attempt to reinvent > it. > We do have a general permission for implementors to do early (optimistic) > detection of type errors, and this is possible whether we describe the rules in > English or in some formal notation. It is one thing to rely on the intuition and ingenuity of implementors and totally different thing to give them a simple, yet strict expression of type constraints. Whenever possible we should go with the latter. By not expressing the type constraints succintly we are missing a big opportunity here. I personally think it will be a job not well done. -- 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, 21 July 2010 14:38:55 UTC