xacml — archive

[System]

>Polar >First, my proposal is meant for applying only to the comparison operator >(meaning that it returns a boolean value), not to arithmetic computation >functions such as integer-subtract. I think we had better distinguish these >two types if we support sequence in our function model. Personally, >arithmetic functions are supposed to implicitly have "OnlyFirst" >ComparisonBase. Only First is bad because our data model does not guarantee order, thus evaluation outcome will not be predictible - we went through this discussion with *-first functions. >If you think that comparison base for arithmetic functions are redundant, >it can be omitted. Then only we have to do is to add a text that the >comparison semantics for integer-subtarct function is "OnlyFirst". Does it >make sense? That was in the first iteration of function specification - implicit runtime check of the return sequence size to be appropriate (indeterminate being returned for a wrong cardinality). I still think this is OK, but had to agree with Polar that compile time type safety is worth it. . We seem to reiterate exactly the same issues in different form over and over. . Indeed, not very obvious. . daniel;