- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:56:16 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24478
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> ---
We discussed this issue during the Prague face to face.
There was some consensus that adopting a first-declaration-wins discipline
would solve the problem originally raised. Regarding multiple declarations we
saw several options:
a) Multiple declarations of a static variable are always an error.
b) Multiple declarations are never an error.
c) The second declaration is an error if and only if it has the same or a
higher import precedence.
d) The second declaration is an error if and only if it has the same or a
higher import precedence and a different value (or an inconsistent value?).
e) The second declaration is an error if and only if it has a different value
(independent of import precedence).
Option c) seemed problematic for stylesheets constructed with a configuration
module declaring static variables which is multiply imported; option e) would
raise an error when a parent module wants to override the setting in an
imported module.
After discussion, the group converged on option d). This leads to the question
"what counts as the same or a consistent value?" After further discussion, we
concluded that the rules for identical value in F and O should suffice for this
case. (There were concerns about the rules for function values, but in a
static context the only function values available are the built-ins, so
identity of name really ought to suffice.)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 09:56:18 UTC