- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:18:00 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29430 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- There are missing parentheses in your examples but I assume the intended expressions are fn:sum((xs:byte(1), xs:byte(2))) fn:sum((xs:unsignedShort(12), xs:unsignedShort(24))) fn:sum((xs:nonNegativeInteger(42), xs:nonNegativeInteger(42))) that is, in each case we are concerned with sum#1 rather than sum#2. >My take is that, since fn:sum is defined in terms of op:numeric-plus, section 4.2 applies and they should all return xs:integer. That does not prevent them from return xs:byte, xs:unsignedShort, xs:nonNegativeInteger, I agree with that. >Michael Kay argues in bug 29240, comment#5 that the rules in section 4.2 do not apply for fn:sum, but I think they do. I was arguing that the rules in section 4.2 do not apply to fn:sum() when the first argument to fn:sum is a singleton, because in that case op:numeric-plus is not invoked. The rules for fn:sum say that when the first argument is a singleton, it is returned unchanged. >Considering the confusion this caused Personally I think fn:sum is quite wordy enough already, and that saying the same thing in three different ways does not always add clarity. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 11 February 2016 22:18:09 UTC