Re: Changes to Evaluating Static and Dynamic Function Calls

On 16-03-11 02:11 PM, Michael Dyck wrote:
> On 16-03-11 12:32 PM, Robie, Jonathan wrote:
>> I have made a few changes to the text Michael Dyck committed for
>> Evaluating Static and Dynamic Function Calls:

Yesterday's commit dealt with most of my complaints, but there's still this one:
> Within 5.b.i.A's
>      <phrase diff="add" at="bug29277">
>        The static context for this evaluation
>        ...
>      </phrase>
> there are two embedded diff-phrases, which doesn't make much sense.
> The inner markup should be eliminated.

Also, it occurred to me that changing "implementation is a FunctionBody" to 
"implementation is an &language; expression" has a pitfall wrt maps and 
arrays: e.g., someone could think "This array constructor is an expression, 
and its value is an array, which is a function, so that function's 
implementation is that expression, and so 5.b.i applies." when in fact 
5.b.ii should apply. (Which wasn't a problem before, because although it's 
an expression, it's clearly not a FunctionBody.)

This isn't necessarily a knock against that wording change, but it's at 
least a reminder that we need to be clearer about how arrays and maps fit 
into the world of functions. (That is, we need to say more in the sections 
on arrays and maps, not just mention them in 5.b.ii's parenthetical list.)


Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2016 14:58:20 UTC