Re: Grammar for Union Types

• From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
• Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:03:08 +1100
• To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
• CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
• Message-ID: <4F04F6CC.30408@mcc.id.au>

Dominique Hazael-Massieux:
> Actually, looking at it again, it still doesn't allow for nested union
> types, since UnionMemberType doesn't reference UnionType. I think adding
> | UnionType to UnionMemberType should do.

Yes, you're right.  I've changed the grammar in the spec now.

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/WebIDL/Overview.xml.diff?r1=1.446;r2=1.447;f=h

Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 01:06:09 UTC