- 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