https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29713 --- Comment #10 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> --- (In reply to Michael Dyck from comment #9) > (and also the odd syntax for function decls) Yes, I should have mentioned it was not meant as real code, more-a-less pseudo-code, sorry for the confusion (as in XPath you cannot declare named functions, and this should be a feature of XPath, not XQuery, and be allowed irrespective of whether the function is named or not). > My inclination would be that they all return the same function value. You mean, for instance, that f:test#3 would return an infinite-arity function, or that we forbid f:test#3 (and the overloads) if an infinite-arity function exists? I think, for orthogonality, it should work the same as fn:concat. Which means, there's a single signature with infinite arity (no fixed arity overloads are allowed), where, for instance, fn:concat#8 returns an eight-arity function reference. And fn:concat("foo", ?, ?, ?) returns a three-arity function reference with a single fixed parameter. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.Received on Thursday, 30 June 2016 09:59:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:58:01 UTC