- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2016 08:08:53 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29712 Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl --- Comment #4 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> --- ACTION 2016-06-30-003: ABr to review bug 29712 in detail and determine whether changing the rule would lead to inconsistencies or implementation issues. I've been over previous mail and earlier bugs. I could recollect that we removed the ability for variants of resulting posture (a filter must be striding, grounded is not allowed). I can't recollect we did the same consciously for the sweep of the body of the function. I see no problem in allowing this and agree to Mike's assessments in the previous comments. A processor could, if they want, raise a warning, telling users they should use there resources more carefully and choose inspect instead of absorb. This does raise a related question though: why don't we make our lives a bit simpler w.r.t. the rules. Some rules in this section would, for instance, be a bit easier if we force users to use a type signature of U{N} for the return types of filter, shallow-descent and deep-descent (the rules already require the function body to return nodes). (In reply to Michael Kay from comment #3) > if (current-date() < xs:date('2000-01-01') > then sum($input/@value) > else 0 > > which has consuming sweep (the wider of the sweeps of the two conditional > branches), but doesn't actually consume anything. The wider of the sweeps here is dependent on the type of the parameter (does it accept more-than-one?), which can then be either consuming or motionless. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 2 July 2016 08:09:10 UTC