RE: question about subtyping and type annotations

Definitely agreeing with Vladimir. I'm not sure a rewording is absolutely 
necessary though,
but if we want to be more explicit, adding something about the type 
annotation
might help?

- Jerome


www-ql-request@w3.org wrote on 02/24/2006 02:41:38 PM:

> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Michael Kay wrote:
> 
> >
> >> Section 3.12.5 Constructor Functions seems to be pretty clear
> >> about it:
> >
> > That only says they are equivalent to casts. Are casts exempt from the
> > general rule of substitutability, which says that any expression can 
return
> > a value whose dynamic type is a subtype of the required type?
> >
> 
> Could the following make sense?:
> 
> The substitutability is a (1) non-normative _property_ of a [good] 
> language spec rather than a (2) normative statement in a language spec 
> that uniformly tweaks definitions of all the language's constructs.
> 
> If so, XQuery casts do satisfy the substitutability property (1). 
> (Implementing them differently, as Michael suggests, wouldn't violate 
(1), 
> but would change the language semantics, since such implementation would 

> contradict the rules in 3.12.3.)
> 
> Perhaps, some confusion can be avoided by changing the phrase in 
> 3.12.3.4.b
> 
>    "... the input value is mapped into the value space of the target 
type,
>         unchanged except for its type. "
> 
> to highlight that the "type" here is _dynamic_, similar to the 
> corresponding phrase in 3.12.3.4.d:
> 
>    "The resulting value is the same as the input value, but with a
>     different dynamic type."
> 
> The intent is the same in both cases, isn't it?
> 
> Vladimir
>

Received on Saturday, 25 February 2006 02:08:19 UTC