Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Attempt to clarify the semantics of static options #1090

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 6, 2024
Merged

Conversation

ndw
Copy link
Contributor

@ndw ndw commented Apr 12, 2024

Close #1085
Close #1086

This is also mostly editorial. I've made err:XS0088 apply to static options that shadow other static options. We didn't previously identify an explicit error code in this section, but I think that's a reasonble choice.

@ndw ndw requested a review from a team as a code owner April 12, 2024 17:47
Copy link
Member

@xml-project xml-project left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As XS0088 is also used for a variable shadowing a static option, maybe we should change the error text:
"It is a static error ... of a static option or a variable ..."

@ndw ndw merged commit bd492fd into xproc:master Jun 6, 2024
2 checks passed
@ndw ndw deleted the iss-1085 branch June 6, 2024 10:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Do private static options make any sense? Clarify the scope of static options
2 participants