W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > November 2004

RE: Is xdt:anyAtomicType itself atomic?

From: Paul J. Lucas <plucas@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:42:48 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0411091839490.4470-100000@g4.pauljlucas.org>

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Michael Rys wrote:

> Xdt:anyAtomicType is the abstract atomic type and thus should be
> considered atomic in a general case (function signatures and implied
> atomization), but is special (no cast) since it is abstract.

	OK, that begs the question: can it be generalized?  E.g., given:

		T = xs:integer | xs:string

	Is T atomic?  More general still: is every type T, composed
	only by alternation of only atomic types, atomic?

	- Paul


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul J. Lucas
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:32 PM
> > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: Is xdt:anyAtomicType itself atomic?
> > 
> > 
> > 	My understanding is that xdt:anyAtomicType type is defined as
> > 	the union of all atomic types and that atomic types are only
> > 	those such as xs:integer, xs:string, etc.
> > 
> > 	It would therefore seem to be the case that xdt:anyAtomicType
> > 	itself is not "atomic."
> > 
> > 	This makes perfect sense to me, but it is correct?  Or should
> > 	xdt:anyAtomicType itslef also be considered atomic?
> > 
> > 	- Paul
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 02:42:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:02 UTC