- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:19:11 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27668 --- Comment #3 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> --- (In reply to Michael Kay from comment #2) > > 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. On a fresh new read of spec and proposed changes, I think you are right. My issue was with "the static type of X" which is not "a type" but defined as a union of types. The ambiguity was in my head, not in the (literal) reading of the spec. > > >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? Yes, I think this makes sense. It would make for a clearer read of U-type related parts of the spec. Or perhaps instead of calling it a static type, we should just always call it the U-type, as the words "static type" can easily be confused with the declared type of a declaration or expression. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 10 January 2015 17:19:12 UTC