- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 21:34:58 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24569
Bug ID: 24569
Summary: Least common types and lattices
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Version: Last Call drafts
Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: XSLT 3.0
Assignee: mike@saxonica.com
Reporter: cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com
QA Contact: public-qt-comments@w3.org
In section 19.2 [1], XSLT 3.0 says that two items do not necessarily have a
unique least common type, because item types form a lattice, not a hierarchy:
In some cases the above entries require computation of the least
common type of two types T and U. Since item types form a lattice
rather than a hierarchy, there may be a set of types V such that
T and U are both subtypes of every type in V, and no type in V
is unambiguously the "least" common type in the sense that all
the others are subtypes of it. In this situation the choice of
which type in V to use as the inferred static type is
implementation-defined.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt-30/#determining-static-type
I believe that in a lattice, any two points have a unique least upper bound or
join -- if they don't, one is not dealing with a lattice.
The claim that itemtypes form a lattice is also found in XDM [2].
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel-30/#types-hierarchy
If any two types do in fact have a least common type, then the paragraph quoted
above from section 19.2 should probably go away; if we do have pairs of types
that lack a unique least common type, then the claim that our types form a
lattice should be dropped from both specs and any other spec that makes it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 21:35:00 UTC