[xquery-talk] Re: about "module" in XQuery spec

[he harrison]

Jonathan, let me confirm, it seems that you are telling me that
this case does not violate XQuery's consistency constraints because
each module has its own definitions, right?
Then according to module's "independently undergo the static analysis phase"

definition, the answer will be "false" if implementation provide mechanism
to dynamically detect static unknow type(in order to fully support subtype
substitution),
and will throw an error if implementation did not provide such mechanism,
right?

2008/1/9, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie at redhat.com>:
>
> he harrison wrote:
> > Here is definition of module:
> > "A query can be assembled from one or more fragments called *modules*.
> > [Definition: A *module* is a fragment of XQuery code that conforms to
> > the Module <http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#doc-xquery-Module> grammar
> > and can independently undergo the static analysis phase
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#dt-static-analysis> described in *2.2.3
> > Expression Processing*
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#id-expression-processing>. Each module
> > is either a main module <http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#dt-main-module>
> > or a library module <http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#dt-library-module>.]"
> >
> > Since modules could independetly undergo the static analysis phase, then
> > I understand wherever it's imported, it's in-scope schema type
> > definition should not be
> > redefined by importing module.
>
> This is true.
>
> Also, note that if you do import definitions that differ into a given
> context, that would violate XQuery's consistency constraints
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#id-consistency-constraints). Since each
> module has its own definitions, there's no problem here.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://x-query.com/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080114/51ab74e9/attachment.htm