W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: [TED] ACTION-294: Propose a treatment of sequences

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:04:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4681470E.9050900@oracle.com>
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org

an empty list is simply List()
in XML it is

By design, there is no such thing as an empty RecursiveList., for the 
same reason that your listconstructor requires at least one element.

Francois Bry (Bry-Haußer) wrote:

>Gary Hallmark wrote:
>>I find the pairs really tedious.  How about
>>class LIST
>>   subclass EnumeratedList
>>      property element : TERM*
>>   subclass RecursiveList
>>      property element : TERM+
>>      property rest : TERM
>Does it mean that a recursive list cannot be empty and that its "rest"
>ist a list term? If yes, this would be strange, I think.
>Why not recursive type definitions like:
>class LIST
>     emptylist
>     or listconstructor(element LISTITEM, LIST)
>with whatever syntax deemed appropriate. My point is that a list
>definition must define both the emptylist and an operator 'list
>constructor' (or however it might be called) with two arguments, a list
>item (or however it might be called) and a list.


Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Gary Hallmark | Architect | +1.503.525.8043
Oracle Server Technologies
1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 800
Portland, OR 97204
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 17:05:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:46 UTC