- From: Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 00:10:30 -0500
- To: "Robie, Jonathan" <jonathan.robie@emc.com>, "public-xsl-query@w3.org" <public-xsl-query@w3.org>
In the editor's draft, the sentence in question now reads: If F is a partially applied function, the implementation of F is called, supplying the value of each nonlocal variable binding as the argument of the corresponding parameter. The change of "fixed position" to "nonlocal variable binding" addresses 2 of my 3 original points. However, none of the other points I raised has been addressed. To recap: (1) We can, and should (and used to!) fully define the semantics of invoking a partially applied function derived from a user-defined function or anonymous function. This text does not. (2) It's unclear what "the corresponding parameter" means. A function F has parameters and nonlocal variable bindings, but they are disjoint by definition, so there's no "correspondence". (3) A partially applied function has no "underlying function". Conceivably, we could specify a PAF that way, but we don't. (4) The CR *does* say what happens when you invoke a partially applied function. -Michael
Received on Sunday, 28 February 2016 05:10:58 UTC