- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:57:00 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11792 --- Comment #2 from Daniela Florescu <dflorescu@mac.com> 2011-01-18 17:56:59 UTC --- Mike, that would be the right solution in my mind: make the trycatch look like switch and typeswitch. try ( Expr ) ( catch Qname return Expr )+ I agree with you that we made this mistake in the past (unordered and validate are examples, indeed). But really we shouldn't do it again. Plus the use of {..} and the lack of 'return' will push people into believing that what follows, or what is enclosed, is a statement, while it is not. They are plain expressions like the other ones. Best regards Dana (In reply to comment #1) > Tricky - changing either switch or try/catch to be more like the other will at > the same time make it less like the equivalent construct in the C/Java family > of languages. > > The parentheses-versus-curlies problem in XQuery is very real. I've never > understood why validate{} isn't a validate() function, and the distinction > between unordered{} and unordered() is so subtle I doubt many WG members could > explain it without first checking the spec (especially as no-one ever uses > either...). Unfortunately, I think it's too late to fix this, and it's hard to > see how to add new constructs without perpetuating the arbitrariness of it all. > Certainly, changing try() to use parenthesis rather than curlies would make it > more like some things and less like others, without giving any overall > improvement in consistency. -- 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 Tuesday, 18 January 2011 17:57:01 UTC