W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > September 2011

[Bug 13399] [XP 3.0] Constraints on Unions in SequenceType

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:26:10 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1R68lW-0002ne-Jm@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13399

--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> 2011-09-20 22:26:10 UTC ---
While integrating this, I ran into some other questions.

1. Is there a difference between this set of types:

all simple types whose {variety} is union, provided they satisfy all the
following conditions:
the {facets} property of the union type is empty; and
no type in the transitive membership of the union type has {variety} list; and
no type in the transitive membership of the union type is a type with {variety}
union having a non-empty {facets} property

And this set of types?

a type whose {variety} is _union_,
whose {facets} property is empty,
and whose {member type definitions} consists exclusively
of atomic types and *restricted union types*.

2. In the current document, we use the term [generalized atomic type] in many
places, not just here, and it refers to either an atomic type or a "restricted
union type". 

If there *is* a difference between the sets of types in (1) above, do we really
need to have both definitions? And which definition applies in the various
places where we currently reference *generalized atomic type*?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 22:26:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:15 GMT