- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:34:49 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29277 Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jmdyck@ibiblio.org --- Comment #2 from Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> --- Presumably, the Function Call terminology is meant to parallel the definition of functions in the Data Model, where the implementation of a function is either "a host language expression" or "an implementation-dependent function implementation". And anyway, the Function Call text does immediately say "(e.g., it is a built-in function ...". It seems like that should have been enough to answer the original question. > In addition, this section does not seem to clearly differentiate where the > DC comes from. That's correct. You'll find the same thing for every other kind of expression: its writeup doesn't say where its dynamic context comes from. In general, an expression E1's dynamic context "comes from" whatever expression E0 caused E1 to be evaluated, and it's the same dynamic context unless there's something about *E0* that makes it different. So it's the writeup for E0's kind of expression that would talk about that difference. E.g., with let $x := 1 return f($x) it's the section for Let Expressions, not the one for Function Calls, that tells you how to construct the dynamic context for f($x). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 16:34:52 UTC