Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Ghislain Fourny
- The function check_xquery_feature_options is too long. Could this be simplified and/or split into multiple functions? DONE -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba. -- Mailing list:

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Ghislain Fourny
- It feels like most of the implementation should go into the translator and not into the static context. DONE -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba. -- Mailing list:

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Ghislain Fourny
- The style of the error messages is not consistent with the other error messages. They should be changed as follows: XQST0120 $1: feature not supported XQST0128 $1: unable to disable a supported feature XQST0126 impossible to activate all extension features DONE --

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Ghislain Fourny
I think I addressed all comments. There are three expected failures left: EXPECTED_FOTS_FAILURE (prod-RequireProhibitFeature require-higher-order-function-5-s 0) EXPECTED_FOTS_FAILURE (prod-RequireProhibitFeature require-higher-order-function-10-s 0) - This is the for $f in () return $f(1, ?)

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Ghislain Fourny
I opened the bug for the first two expected failures here: bug 1171860. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders Post to :

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Ghislain Fourny
EXPECTED_FOTS_FAILURE (prod-RequireProhibitFeature require-all-optional-features-5-s 0) - I removed it because the test suite got updated in the trunk. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba. --

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Ghislain Fourny
Review: Disapprove Disapproving to allow running tests without merging. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders Post to :

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Zorba Build Bot
Voting does not meet specified criteria. Required: Approve 1, Disapprove 1, Needs Fixing 1, Pending 1, Needs Information 1, Resubmit 1. Got: 2 Approve, 1 Disapprove, 1 Needs Fixing. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Nicolae Brinza
Review: Approve -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders Post to : zorba-coders@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe :

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Matthias Brantner
- The fix for dynamic_function_invocation seems to be orthogonal. Why is this fixed in this merge proposal? I couldn't find a test to cover this behavior. It does fix some of the W3C tests: for $f in () return $f(1, ?) Raised an error in zorba because it was considered an object

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Matthias Brantner
Review: Approve awesome -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders Post to : zorba-coders@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe :

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Ghislain Fourny
Review: Approve -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders Post to : zorba-coders@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe :

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Ghislain Fourny
This is one of the cases that we will have to live with. It's a conflict between JSONiq and HOF. We were trying to push the W3C to make the dynamic function invocation a map (i.e. $f could be () or a sequence of function items). However, the w3c didn't want to go this way. - In this case, $f is

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-23 Thread Nicolae Brinza
We do not have to consider $f an object lookup in this case, right? I have the more general feeling that there might be something wrong in type inference regarding for loops on empty sequences. Since there is a partial application ?, it definitely cannot be an object lookup. --

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-22 Thread Ghislain Fourny
- The fix for dynamic_function_invocation seems to be orthogonal. Why is this fixed in this merge proposal? I couldn't find a test to cover this behavior. It does fix some of the W3C tests: for $f in () return $f(1, ?) Raised an error in zorba because it was considered an object lookup.

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-19 Thread Sorin Marian Nasoi
Review: Approve -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders Post to : zorba-coders@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe :

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-19 Thread Zorba Build Bot
The attempt to merge lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba failed. Below is the output from the failed tests. CMake Error at /home/ceej/zo/testing/zorbatest/tester/TarmacLander.cmake:275 (message): Validation queue job bug-1123165-2013-04-19T14-11-47.953Z is finished. The final

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-19 Thread Matthias Brantner
Review: Needs Fixing - The fix for dynamic_function_invocation seems to be orthogonal. Why is this fixed in this merge proposal? I couldn't find a test to cover this behavior. - The function check_xquery_feature_options is too long. Could this be simplified and/or split into multiple

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-19 Thread Nicolae Brinza
Ghislain, could you also please remove the fix that you submitted for scanner.l problem? Your proposal works, but on linux the GCC gives off a warning for that code. I have a proposal that fixes the issue in another branch, which Matthias will approve and merge soon. --

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-19 Thread Nicolae Brinza
I too agree that it should be moved to the translator. That's where all the similar code currently is. Other than this and the scanner issue, it looks good for me. -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch

Re: [Zorba-coders] [Merge] lp:~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165 into lp:zorba

2013-04-19 Thread Nicolae Brinza
Review: Approve -- https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug-1123165/+merge/159822 Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders Post to : zorba-coders@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe :