Updates for 1.10: warnings when for-in uses an expresison that has no iterator; assorted typos.

docs/language/dartLangSpec.tex

 \documentclass{article}
 \usepackage{epsfig}
 \usepackage{color}
 \usepackage{dart}
 \usepackage{bnf}
 \usepackage{hyperref}
 \usepackage{lmodern}
 \newcommand{\code}[1]{{\sf #1}}
 \title{Dart Programming Language  Specification \\
-{\large Version 1.9}}
+{\large Version 1.10}}
 
 % For information about Location Markers (and in particular the
 % commands \LMHash and \LMLabel), see the long comment at the
 % end of this file.
 
 \begin{document}
 \maketitle
 \tableofcontents
 
 
@@ skipping 2316 matching lines @@
       throwExpressionWithoutCascade    
     .
 
 {\bf expressionList:}
       expression (`,' expression)* %should these be top level expressions?
     .
 \end{grammar}    
 
 \begin{grammar}
 {\bf primary:}thisExpression;
-      \SUPER{} assignableSelector;
+      \SUPER{} unconditionalAssignableSelector;
       functionExpression;
       literal;
       identifier;
       newExpression;
       \NEW{} type `\#' (`{\escapegrammar .}' identifier)?;
       constObjectExpression;
       `(' expression `)'
     .
     
 \end{grammar}   
@@ skipping 383 matching lines @@
    
 \end{grammar}
 
 \LMHash{}
 Multiline strings are delimited by either matching triples of single quotes or matching triples of double quotes. If the first line of a multiline string consists solely of the whitespace characters defined by the production {\em WHITESPACE}  \ref{lexicalRules}), possibly prefixed by $\backslash$, then that line is ignored, including the new line at its end.
 
  
  \rationale{
  The idea is to ignore whitespace, where whitespace is defined as tabs, spaces and newlines. These can be represented directly, but since for most characters prefixing by backslash is an identity, we allow those forms as well.
  }
+ 
+ % could be clearer. Is the first line in  """\t
+ %    """ ignored not. It depends if we mean whitespace before escapes are interpreted,
+ % or after, or both.  See https://code.google.com/p/dart/issues/detail?id=23020
 
 \LMHash{}
 Strings support escape sequences for special characters. The escapes are:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item  $\backslash$n for newline, equivalent to $\backslash$x0A.
 \item $\backslash$r for carriage return, equivalent to $\backslash$x0D.
 \item $\backslash$f for form feed, equivalent to $\backslash$x0C.
 \item $\backslash$b for backspace, equivalent to $\backslash$x08.
 \item $\backslash$t for tab, equivalent to $\backslash$x09.
 \item $\backslash$v for vertical tab, equivalent to $\backslash$x0B
@@ skipping 1148 matching lines @@
 
 \LMHash{}
 A super method invocation $i$ has the form 
 
 $\SUPER{}.m(a_1, \ldots , a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots , x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$.
 
 \LMHash{}
 Evaluation of $i$ proceeds as follows:
 
 \LMHash{}
-First, the argument list $(a_1, \ldots , a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots , x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$ is evaluated  yielding actual argument objects $o_1, \ldots , o_{n+k}$. Let $S$ be the superclass of the immediately enclosing class, and let $f$ be the result of looking up method (\ref{ordinaryInvocation})  $m$ in $S$  with respect to the current library $L$. 
+First, the argument list $(a_1, \ldots , a_n, x_{n+1}: a_{n+1}, \ldots , x_{n+k}: a_{n+k})$ is evaluated  yielding actual argument objects $o_1, \ldots , o_{n+k}$. Let $S$ be the superclass of the immediately enclosing class, and let $f$ be the result of looking up method (\ref{methodLookup})  $m$ in $S$  with respect to the current library $L$. 
 Let $p_1 \ldots p_h$ be the required parameters of $f$,  let $p_1 \ldots p_m$ be the positional parameters of $f$ and let $p_{h+1}, \ldots, p_{h+l}$ be the optional parameters declared by $f$.
 
 \LMHash{}
 If  $n < h$, or $n > m$, the method lookup has failed. Furthermore, each $x_i, n+1 \le i \le n+k$,  must have a corresponding named parameter in the set $\{p_{m+1}, \ldots, p_{h+l}\}$ or the method lookup also fails.  Otherwise method lookup has succeeded.
 
 \LMHash{}
 If the method lookup succeeded, the body of $f$ is executed with respect to the bindings that resulted from the evaluation of the argument list, and with \THIS{} bound to the current value of \THIS{}. The value of $i$ is the value returned after $f$ is executed.
 
 \LMHash{}
 If the method lookup has failed, then let $g$ be the result of looking up getter (\ref{getterAndSetterLookup}) $m$ in $S$ with respect to $L$. If the getter lookup succeeded, let $v_g$ be the value of the getter invocation $\SUPER{}.m$. Then the value of $i$ is the result of invoking 
@@ skipping 53 matching lines @@
 
 
 \commentary{Closures derived from members via closurization are colloquially known as tear-offs}
 
 Property extraction can be either {\em conditional} or {\em unconditional}.
 
 \rationale {
 Tear-offs using the \cd{ x\#id}  syntax cannot be conditional at this time; this is inconsistent, and is likely to be addressed in the near future, perhaps via  notation such as  \cd{ x?\#id} . As indicated in section \ref{ecmaConformance}, experimentation in this area is allowed.
 }
 
-Evaluation of a {\em conditional property extraction expression} $e$ of the form $e_1?.id$  is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression  $((x) => x == \NULL ? \NULL : x.id)(e_1)$. The static type of $e$ is the same as the static type of $e_1.id$. Let $T$ be the static type of $e_1$ and let $y$ be a fresh variable o type $T$. Exactly the same static warnings that would be caused by $y.id$ are also generated in the case of $e_1?.id$.
+Evaluation of a {\em conditional property extraction expression} $e$ of the form $e_1?.id$  is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression  $((x) => x == \NULL ? \NULL : x.id)(e_1)$. The static type of $e$ is the same as the static type of $e_1.id$. Let $T$ be the static type of $e_1$ and let $y$ be a fresh variable of type $T$. Exactly the same static warnings that would be caused by $y.id$ are also generated in the case of $e_1?.id$.
 
 \commentary{
 One might be tempted to conclude that for $e \ne \NULL{}$, $e?.v$ is always equivalent to $e.v$. However this is not the case. If $e$ is a type literal representing a type with static member $v$, then $e.v$ refers to that member, but $e?.v$ does not.
 }
 
 \LMHash{}
 Unconditional property extraction takes several syntactic forms: $e.m$ (\ref{getterAccessAndMethodExtraction}), $\SUPER.m$ (\ref{superGetterAccessAndMethodClosurization}), $e\#m$ (\ref{generalClosurization}), $\NEW{}$ $T\#m$ (\ref{namedConstructorExtraction}), $\NEW{}$ $T\#$ (\ref{anonymousConstructorExtraction}) and $\SUPER\#m$ (\ref{generalSuperPropertyExtraction}), where $e$ is an expression, $m$ is an identifier optionally followed by an equal sign and $T$ is a type.
 
 \subsubsection{Getter Access and Method Extraction}
 \LMLabel{getterAccessAndMethodExtraction}
@@ skipping 144 matching lines @@
 \LMHash{}
 It is a compile-time error if $e$ is a prefix object (\ref{imports}) and $m$ refers to a type or a member of class \cd{Object}.
 
 \commentary{
 This restriction is in line with other limitations on the use of prefixes as objects. The only permitted uses of $p\#m$ are closurizing top level methods and getters imported via the prefix $p$. Top level methods are directly available by their qualified names: $p.m$. However, getters and setters are not, and allowing their closurization is the whole point of the $e\#m$ syntax.
 }
 
 \LMHash{}
 Let $T$ be the static type of $e$. It is a static type warning if $T$ does not have an accessible instance method or getter named $m$ unless either:
 \begin{itemize}
-\item $T$ or a superinterface of $T$ is annotated with an annotation denoting a constant identical to the constant proxy defined in \cd{dart:core}. Or
+\item $T$ or a superinterface of $T$ is annotated with an annotation denoting a constant identical to the constant \code{@proxy} defined in \cd{dart:core}. Or
 \item $T$ is \cd{Type}, $e$ is a constant type literal and the class corresponding to $e$ declares an accessible static method or getter named $m$.
 \end{itemize}
 
 The static type of $i$ is:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item The static type of function $T.m$, if $T$ has an accessible instance member named $m$.
 \item The static type of function $T.m$, if $T$ is \cd{Type}, $e$ is a constant type literal and the class corresponding to $e$ declares an accessible static member or constructor named $m$.
 \item The type  \DYNAMIC{} otherwise. 
 \end{itemize}
 
@@ skipping 222 matching lines @@
 \LMHash{}
 Evaluation of an assignment $a$ of the form $v$ \code{=} $e$ proceeds as follows:
 
 
 %If there is neither a local variable declaration with name $v$ nor a setter declaration with name $v=$ in the lexical scope enclosing $a$, then:
 %\begin{itemize}
 % \item If  $a$ occurs inside a top level or static function (be it function, method, getter,  or setter) or variable initializer, evaluation of $a$ causes $e$ to be evaluated, after which a \code{NoSuchMethodError} is thrown. 
 % \item Otherwise, the assignment is equivalent to the assignment \code{ \THIS{}.$v$ = $e$}. 
 % \end{itemize}
  
-%Otherwise,  
+%Otherwise 
 
 \LMHash{}
 Let $d$ be the innermost declaration whose name is $v$ or $v=$, if it exists.
 
 \LMHash{}
 If $d$ is the declaration of a local variable, the expression $e$ is evaluated to an object $o$. Then, the variable $v$ is bound to $o$ unless $v$ is \FINAL{} or \CONST{}, in which case a dynamic error occurs.
 If no error occurs, the value of the assignment expression is $o$.  
 
+% add local functions per bug 23218
+
 \LMHash{}
 If $d$ is the declaration of a library variable, top level getter or top level setter, the expression $e$ is evaluated to an object $o$. Then the setter $v=$ is invoked with its formal parameter bound to $o$. The value of the assignment expression is $o$.  
 
 \LMHash{}
 Otherwise, if $d$ is the declaration of a static variable, static getter or static setter in class $C$, then the assignment is equivalent to the assignment \code{$C.v$ = $e$}.
 
 \LMHash{}
 Otherwise, If  $a$ occurs inside a top level or static function (be it function, method, getter,  or setter) or variable initializer, evaluation of $a$ causes $e$ to be evaluated, after which a \code{NoSuchMethodError} is thrown. 
 
 \LMHash{}
@@ skipping 108 matching lines @@
 
 \LMHash{}
 It is a compile-time error to invoke any of the setters of class \cd{Object} on a prefix object (\ref{imports}) or on a constant type literal that is  immediately followed by the token `.'.
 
 
 
 \subsubsection{Compound Assignment}
 \LMLabel{compoundAssignment}
 
 \LMHash{}
-Evaluation of a compound assignment of the form $v$ {\em ??=} $e$ is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression  $((x) => x == \NULL{}$ ?  $v=e : x)(v)$ where $x$ is a fresh variable that is not used in $e$. Evaluation of a compound assignment of the form $C.v$ {\em ??=} $e$, where $C$ is a type literal, is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression  $((x) => x == \NULL{}$?  $C.v=e: x)(C.v)$ where $x$ is a fresh variable that is not used in $e$. Evaluation of a compound assignment of the form $e_1.v$ {\em ??=} $e_2$ is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression  $((x) =>((y) => y == \NULL{}$ ? $ x.v = e_2: y)(x.v))(e_1)$ where $x$ and $y$ are distinct fresh variables that are not used in $e_2$. Evaluation of a compound assignment of the form  $e_1[e_2]$  {\em ??=} $e_3$ is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression  
+Evaluation of a compound assignment of the form $v$ {\em ??=} $e$ is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression  $((x) => x == \NULL{}$ ?  $v=e : x)(v)$ where $x$ is a fresh variable that is not used in $e$. Evaluation of a compound assignment of the form $C.v$ {\em ??=} $e$, where $C$ is a type literal, is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression  $((x) => x == \NULL{}$?  $C.v=e: x)(C.v)$ where $x$ is a fresh variable that is not used in $e$. 
+
+\commentary {
+The two rules above also apply when the variable v or the type C is prefixed.
+}
+
+Evaluation of a compound assignment of the form $e_1.v$ {\em ??=} $e_2$ is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression  $((x) =>((y) => y == \NULL{}$ ? $ x.v = e_2: y)(x.v))(e_1)$ where $x$ and $y$ are distinct fresh variables that are not used in $e_2$. Evaluation of a compound assignment of the form  $e_1[e_2]$  {\em ??=} $e_3$ is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression  
 $((a, i) => ((x) => x == \NULL{}$ ?  $a[i] = e_3: x)(a[i]))(e_1, e_2)$ where $x$, $a$ and $i$ are distinct fresh variables that are not used in $e_3$. Evaluation of a compound assignment of the form $\SUPER.v$  {\em ??=} $e$ is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression  $((x) => x == \NULL{}$ ? $\SUPER.v = e: x)(\SUPER.v)$ where $x$ is a fresh variable that is not used in $e$.
 
 \LMHash{}
 Evaluation of a compound assignment of the form $e_1?.v$  {\em ??=} $e_2$ is equivalent to the evaluation of the expression \code{((x) $=>$ x == \NULL{} ?  \NULL: $x.v ??=  e_2$)($e_1$)} where $x$ is a variable that is not used in $e_2$. 
 
 
 \LMHash{}
 The static type of a compound assignment of the form $v$ {\em ??=} $e$ is the least upper bound of the static type of $v$ and the static type of $e$.  Exactly the same static warnings that would be caused by $v = e$ are also generated in the case of $v$ {\em ??=} $e$.
 
 
 \LMHash{}
 The static type of a compound assignment of the form  $C.v$ {\em ??=} $e$  is the least upper bound of the static type of $C.v$ and the static type of $e$.  Exactly the same static warnings that would be caused by $C.v = e$ are also generated in the case of $C.v$ {\em ??=} $e$.
 
 \LMHash{}
-The static type of a compound assignment of the form $e_1.v$  {\em ??=} $e_2$ is the least upper bound of the static type of $e_1.v$ and the static type of $e_2$. Let $T$ be the static type of $e_1$ and let $z$ be a fresh variable of type $T$. Exactly the same static warnings that would be caused by $z.v = e$ are also generated in the case of $e_1.v$  {\em ??=} $e_2$.
+The static type of a compound assignment of the form $e_1.v$  {\em ??=} $e_2$ is the least upper bound of the static type of $e_1.v$ and the static type of $e_2$. Let $T$ be the static type of $e_1$ and let $z$ be a fresh variable of type $T$. Exactly the same static warnings that would be caused by $z.v = e_2$ are also generated in the case of $e_1.v$  {\em ??=} $e_2$.
 
 \LMHash{}
 The static type of a compound assignment of the form $e_1[e_2]$  {\em ??=} $e_3$  is the least upper bound of the static type of $e_1[e_2]$ and the static type of $e_3$. Exactly the same static warnings that would be caused by $e_1[e_2] = e_3$ are also generated in the case of $e_1[e_2]$  {\em ??=} $e_3$.
 
 \LMHash{}
 The static type of a compound assignment of the form $\SUPER.v$  {\em ??=} $e$  is the least upper bound of the static type of $\SUPER.v$ and the static type of $e$. Exactly the same static warnings that would be caused by $\SUPER.v = e$ are also generated in the case of $\SUPER.v$  {\em ??=} $e$.
 
 \LMHash{}
 For any other valid operator $op$, a compound assignment of the form $v$ $op\code{=} e$ is equivalent to $v \code{=} v$ $op$ $e$. A compound assignment of the form $C.v$ $op \code{=} e$ is equivalent to $C.v \code{=} C.v$ $op$ $e$. A compound assignment of the form $e_1.v$ $op = e_2$ is equivalent to \code{((x) $=>$ x.v = x.v $op$ $e_2$)($e_1$)} where $x$ is a variable that is not used in $e_2$. A compound assignment of the form  $e_1[e_2]$ $op\code{=} e_3$ is equivalent to 
 \code{((a, i) $=>$ a[i] = a[i] $op$ $e_3$)($e_1, e_2$)} where $a$ and $i$ are a variables that are not used in $e_3$. 
 
 \LMHash{}
 Evaluation of a compound assignment of the form $e_1?.v$ $op = e_2$ is equivalent to \code{((x) $=>$ x?.v = x.v $op$ $e_2$)($e_1$)} where $x$ is a variable that is not used in $e_2$. The static type of $e_1?.v$ $op = e_2$ is the static type of $e_1.v$ $op$ $e_2$. Exactly the same static warnings that would be caused by $e_1.v$ $op = e_2$ are also generated in the case of $e_1?.v$ $op = e_2$.
 
+% Buggy. Allows C?.v = e.
+
 \begin{grammar}
 {\bf compoundAssignmentOperator:}`*=';
       `/=';
       `\~{}/=';
       `\%=';
       `+=';
       `-=';
       `{\escapegrammar \lt \lt}=';
        `{\escapegrammar \gt \gt}=';
       `\&=';
@@ skipping 417 matching lines @@
  \end{grammar}
  
 \LMHash{}
  A {\em postfix expression} is either a primary expression, a function, method or getter invocation, or an invocation of a postfix operator on an expression $e$.
 
 \LMHash{}
 A postfix expression of the form \code{$v$++}, where $v$ is an identifier, is equivalent to \code{()\{var r = $v$; $v$ = r + 1; return r\}()}.
 
 \rationale{The above ensures that if $v$ is a field, the getter gets called exactly once. Likewise in the cases below. 
 }
+%what about e?.x++ 
 
 \LMHash{}
 A postfix expression of the form \code{$C.v$ ++} is equivalent to 
 
 \code{()\{var r = $C.v$; $C.v$ = r + 1; return r\}()}.
 
 \LMHash{}
 A postfix expression of the form \code{$e_1.v$++} is equivalent to 
 
 \code{(x)\{var r = x.v; x.v = r + 1; \RETURN{} r\}($e_1$)}.
@@ skipping 603 matching lines @@
 \WHILE{} (n0.moveNext()) \{
    $finalConstVarOrType?$ id = n0.current;
    $s$ 
 \}
 \end{dartCode}
 where \code{n0} is an identifier that does not occur anywhere in the program.
 
 \commentary{
 Note that in fact, using a  \CONST{} variable would give rise to a compile time error since \cd{n0.current} is not a constant expression.  
 }
+
+It is a static warning if the static type of $e$ does not have a member \cd{iterator}. It is a static warning if the static type of \cd{$e$.iterator} does not have a method \cd{moveNext}. It is a static warning if static return type of  \cd{$e$.iterator.moveNext()} is not assignable to the static type of \cd{id}.

[Paul Berry, 2015/06/12 18:28:09]

I don't think this is what we want:

1. It seems redundant to require that the static type of e has a member
"iterator", since the equivalent code above will have a static warning if it
doesn't.  However, if you are including this for completeness, then it is not
sufficient to require the static type of e to have a member "iterator".  We need
to require a *getter* called "iterator"; otherwise we won't catch the case where
the member "iterator" is an explicit setter that lacks a corresponding getter.

2. Requiring moveNext to be a method seems too broad.  The equivalent code above
allows moveNext to be a getter that returns a function, and the current vm and
dart2js implementations are consistent with this; so I think the static warnings
should permit moveNext to be a function-typed getter (or a getter whose type is
dynamic).

3. The static return type of moveNext needs to be be assignable to bool, since
in the equivalent code above, moveNext() is called in the condition of a while
loop.

4. There should be a static warning if moveNext has any required parameters.

5. There should be a static warning if the static type of e.iterator does not
have a getter called "current".

6. There should be a static warning if the static type of e.iterator.current is
not assignable to the static type of id.

As an alternative to spelling out all these cases, you might consider just
specifying that "for (finalConstVarOrType? id in e) s" has the same static
warnings as:

T n0 = e.iterator;
while (n0.moveNext()) {
  finalConstVarOrType? id = n0.current;
  s
}

where T is the static type of e.iterator.

+
+
+\commentary {
+One might have required that \cd{n0} had type \cd{Iterable$<T>$} where $T$ was the static type of \cd{id}. However, that would cause failure in checked mode if $e$ was merely emulating the  \cd{Iterable} interface. 
+}
+ 
  
 \subsubsection{Asynchronous For-in}
 \LMLabel{asynchronousFor-in}
 
 \LMHash{}
 A for-in statement may be asynchronous. The asynchronous form is designed to iterate over streams. An asynchronous for loop is distinguished by the keyword \AWAIT{} immediately preceding the keyword \FOR.
 
 \LMHash{}
 Execution of a for-in statement of the form  \code{\AWAIT{} \FOR{} (finalConstVarOrType? id \IN{} $e$) $s$} proceeds as follows:
 
@@ skipping 912 matching lines @@
 \LMHash{}
 An immediate import directive $I$ may optionally include a prefix clause of the form \AS{} \code{Id} used to prefix names imported by $I$. A deferred import must include a prefix clause or a compile time error occurs. It is a compile-time error if a prefix used in a deferred import is used in another import clause.
 
 \LMHash{}
 An import directive $I$ may optionally include a namespace combinator clauses used to restrict the set of names imported by $I$. Currently, two namespace combinators are supported: \HIDE{} and \SHOW{}.
 
 \LMHash{}
 Let $I$ be an import directive that refers to a URI via the string $s_1$. Evaluation of $I$  proceeds as follows:
 
 \LMHash{}
-If $I$ is a deferred import, no evaluation takes place. Instead, a mapping of the name of the prefix, $p$ to a {\em deferred prefix object} is added to the scope of $L$.
+If $I$ is a deferred import, no evaluation takes place. Instead, a mapping of the name of the prefix, $p$ to a {\em deferred prefix object} is added to the scope of the current library $L$.
 The deferred prefix object has the following methods:
 
 \begin{itemize}
 \item \code{loadLibrary}. This method returns a future $f$. When called, the method causes an immediate import $I'$ to be executed at some future time, where $I'$ is is derived from $I$ by eliding the word \DEFERRED{} and adding a \HIDE{} \code{loadLibrary}  combinator clause. When $I'$ executes without error, $f$ completes successfully. If $I'$ executes without error, we say that the call to \code{loadLibrary} has succeeded, otherwise we say the call has failed.
-\item  For every top level function $f$ named $id$ in $L$, a corresponding method named $id$ with the same signature as $f$. Calling the method results in a runtime error.
-\item For every top level getter $g$ named $id$ in $L$, a corresponding getter named $id$ with the same signature as $g$.  Calling the method results in a runtime error.
-\item For every top level setter $s$ named $id$ in $L$, a corresponding setter named $id$ with the same signature as $s$.  Calling the method results in a runtime error.
-\item For every type $T$ named $id$ in $L$, a corresponding getter named $id$ with return type \code{Type}.  Calling the method results in a runtime error.
+\item  For every top level function $f$ named $id$ in the imported library $B$, a corresponding method named $id$ with the same signature as $f$. Calling the method results in a runtime error.
+\item For every top level getter $g$ named $id$ in $B$, a corresponding getter named $id$ with the same signature as $g$.  Calling the method results in a runtime error.
+\item For every top level setter $s$ named $id$ in $B$, a corresponding setter named $id$ with the same signature as $s$.  Calling the method results in a runtime error.
+\item For every type $T$ named $id$ in $B$, a corresponding getter named $id$ with return type \code{Type}.  Calling the method results in a runtime error.
 \end{itemize}
 
+\rationale {
+The purpose of adding members of $B$ to $p$ is to ensure that any warnings  issued when using $p$ are correct, and no spurious warnings are generated.  In fact, at runtime we cannot add these members until $B$ is loaded; but any such invocations will fail at runtime as specified by virtue of being completely absent.
+}
+%But this is still a lie detectable by reflection. Probably revise so the type of p has these members but p does not.
+
 \LMHash{}
 After a call succeeds, the name $p$ is mapped to a non-deferred prefix object as described below. In addition, the prefix object also supports the \code{loadLibrary} method, and so it is possible to call \code{loadLibrary} again. If a call fails, nothing happens, and one again has the option to call \code{loadLibrary} again. Whether a repeated call to \code{loadLibrary} succeeds will vary as described below.
 
 \LMHash{}
 The effect of a repeated call to \code{$p$.loadLibrary} is as follows:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item
 If another call to \code{$p$.loadLibrary} has already succeeded, the repeated call also succeeds. 
 Otherwise,
 \item
@@ skipping 682 matching lines @@
 % ensure that Object  and dynamic may be assign dot a function type
 A function is always an instance of some class that implements the class \code{Function} and implements a \CALL{} method with the same signature as the function. All function types are subtypes of \code{Function}.
 If a type $I$ includes an instance method named \CALL{}, and the type of \CALL{} is the function type $F$, then $I$ is considered to be more specific than $F$.  It is a static warning if a concrete class implements \cd{Function} and does not have a concrete method named \CALL{} unless that class has an implementation of \cd{noSuchMethod()} distinct from the one declared in class \cd{Object}.
 
 
 
 
 %\commentary{Need to specify how a function values dynamic type is derived from its static signature.}
 
 \LMHash{}
-A function type $(T_1, \ldots T_{k}, [T_{k+1}  \ldots, T_{n+m}]) \rightarrow T$ is a more specific than the
+A function type $(T_1, \ldots T_{k}, [T_{k+1}  \ldots, T_{n+m}]) \rightarrow T$ is more specific than the
 function type $(S_1, \ldots, S_{k+j}, [S_{k+j+1} \ldots, S_{n}]) \rightarrow S$, if all of the following conditions are met:
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item Either
 \begin{itemize}
 \item $S$ is \VOID{}, Or
 \item  $T << S$.
 \end{itemize}
 \item $\forall i \in 1 .. n, T_i << S_i$.
 \end{enumerate}
 
@@ skipping 489 matching lines @@
 
 The invariant that each normative paragraph is associated with a line
 containing the text \LMHash{} should be maintained.  Extra occurrences
 of \LMHash{} can be added if needed, e.g., in order to make
 individual \item{}s in itemized lists addressable.  Each \LM.. command
 must occur on a separate line.  \LMHash{} must occur immediately
 before the associated paragraph, and \LMLabel must occur immediately
 after the associated \section{}, \subsection{} etc.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------