- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:07:27 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27668 --- Comment #2 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- >After this proposed change, the above expression hits an ambiguity, as there is no more "a type", but there is now a "collection of types" (attribute and element nodes), of which one would yield U' inspection, and the other would yield U' absorption. In fact, the static type of an operand is by definition a U-Type, and the U-Type of (self::p, @lang) is U{element(), attribute()}. The intersection of this with U{element(), document-node()} is NOT U{}, therefore U' is U. I think there is no ambiguity. >in the GSR we speak of "The static type T", while in fact this is a union of several types The definition of the "static type" of an expression says that it is a U-Type. Would it be clearer if we called it the "static U-Type" of an expression? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 10 January 2015 00:07:28 UTC