- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:10:49 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2012-05-22, at 14:53, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > On 22/05/12 14:50, Gregory Williams wrote: >> On May 22, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Steve Harris wrote: >> >>> I've only read 10.2, but it seems good to me. >>> >>> The only thing I wonder about is if UNDEF would be better as UNBOUND, to match BOUND(). It's more characters, but might be more consistent? >> >> I thought the same thing, but am getting more and more reluctant to change things that we've had around for a long time… >> >> .greg >> > > I have a mild preference for UNDEF - it's talking about the value. > > Values aren't "bound" - variables are. Granted it is making a binding for a variable but the syntax is an aligned list of values. I see the logic, just it loses the commonality with the associated function. Not a big deal. For e.g. Perl has an undef symbol, but the associated function is called defined(). - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 14:11:47 UTC