http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9139 --- Comment #13 from Henry Zongaro <zongaro@ca.ibm.com> 2010-03-03 22:16:19 --- (In reply to comment #11) Sorry, Michael D. - I'm getting confused. Reading comment #10, I thought you were arguing that the result of the following should be "b.xq" module "a.xq"; declare variable $f as (function() as xs:string) := fn:static-base-uri#0; module "b.xq"; $f() But reading comment #11, I think you're arguing that the result should be "a.xq". May I ask you to clarify? By the way, in comment #5 I was going to add that I thought the current text implied the result would be "b.xq" for an example like the one above, but that I thought that would be undesirable behaviour. I prefer the result "a.xq" here, because my mental model is that the components of the static context for a function literal are similar to the variables in the closure of an inline function. And I agree with what John Snelson says in comment #12. Regardless, I'm not sure the WGs considered it one way or the other, and wanted to make sure there was an explicit decision which behaviour to adopt. -- 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, 3 March 2010 22:16:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:30 UTC