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 15:55:06 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1SA1Os-0001St-8K@jessica.w3.org>

Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |jonathan.robie@gmail.com
          Component|Functions and Operators 3.0 |XPath 3.0
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
         AssignedTo|mike@saxonica.com           |jonathan.robie@gmail.com

--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> 2012-03-20 15:55:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> 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
> constructors.

The Working Group has agreed to this change.

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 15:55:13 UTC

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