- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:28:49 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10205 --- Comment #9 from dnovatchev@gmail.com 2010-07-23 02:28:48 --- (In reply to comment #8) First of all, I apologize for the duplicate comments -- I got a very strange message, something like "Unexpected mid-air collision has occured", asking whether I want the comment to be published or lost... You can guess which was the choice I selected. > >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. Can't there be even a static *warning* that the specification mandates? -- 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 Friday, 23 July 2010 02:28:51 UTC