- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:57:53 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10205
--- Comment #7 from dnovatchev@gmail.com 2010-07-21 15:57:53 ---
(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.
In this particular case implementors should not have "permisiion" -- they
should be obliged to issue certain *static* type errors. Regardless whether the
type constraints are expressed formally or in English, there must be text
saying that:
"It is a static type error if the type of the {n-th argument} of $f() is not
the same as (or derived from) the type of {k-th argument} of the {function
being defined}." - where the phrases in the {} brackets should match one of
the four functions being defined.
--
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 15:57:54 UTC