W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2012

[Bug 16089] [FO30] cast vs. constructors (FunctionCall-015)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:03:26 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1S9wqc-0006HP-AW@jessica.w3.org>

Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         Depends on|                            |16149

--- Comment #5 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2012-03-20 11:03:24 UTC ---
I'm inclined to think that the cleanest solution is to abandon the special rule
(cast rule 1) that says atomization doesn't happen if the target type is
namespace sensitive. It's a paternalistic rule that prevents people doing
things whose effects might be surprising, but it causes orhogonality problems.
The orthonogality problems are bearable for cast expressions, but are very
disruptive if we try to carry the same rule through to constructor functions;
and we really don't want to introduce a difference between casts and

Configure bugmail: https://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, 20 March 2012 11:03:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:48 UTC