Dear Sirs: The "ALL" construct is very useful in my work ... I use it "all the time" (pun intended) to represent sets of attributes contained in a class or interface. While I understand that restrictions were made to keep ALL constructs from being unmanageable, I think it would be very useful to allow *extensions* to ALL constructs in specific ways. For example, if I represented class A (which contains 5 attributes) with an ALL group with 5 contained elements, I would like to represent class B (which is a subclass of A and which adds 3 attributes) with another ALL group that only contained the additional 3 elements and that references the ALL group for class A as a base. Does this make sense? I don't want to open up a bag of worms, and I don't think I am. I just want to be able to add more "possibilities" to the ALL group in a derived complex type. Thanks for the consideration, Robert NielsenReceived on Monday, 7 March 2005 01:02:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:13:36 GMT