- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:06:27 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29119 --- Comment #11 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- In response to comment #9: (a) xs:error(1) instance of xs:error can either raise FORG0001 or return false Yes, I would agree. It can return false on the theory that "If X can be evaluated without error then (X instance of xs:error) is false, so there is no need to evaluate X to know the answer", and it can return FORG0001 as a consequence of the fact that evaluating xs:error(1) returns FORG0001. (b) declare function local:my-error($qname) as xs:error {fn:error($qname, "boo")}; "might either raise the [error?] from fn:error() or XPTY0004." I don't think the function declaration on its own is in any way erroneous. I agree that a call on this function could either fail with $qname or with XPTY0004. (c) declare variable $x as xs:error := fn:error();$x and let $x as xs:error := fn:error() return $x might raise FOER0000 or XPTY0004 I agree. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 10:06:35 UTC