[Bug 10205] Issues in section 16.2 Basic higher-order functions

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10205





--- Comment #8 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>  2010-07-22 23:01:57 ---
>In this particular case implementors should not have "permission" -- they
should be obliged to issue certain *static* type errors.

I'm afraid that would be a radical departure from current practice. At present
we *never* require type errors to be raised statically, even for basic errors
like (3+"Fred"). The reason is that one can't make such a requirement without
defining the rules for inferring the static type of expressions, and experience
has shown that (a) it's very difficult to define such rules in an interoperable
way, and (b) that the resulting rules can be very complex.

-- 
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 Thursday, 22 July 2010 23:02:00 UTC