- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:56:04 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13399
Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> 2011-09-20 14:56:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> *unrestricted union type*
One of the changes you suggest is to go back to a term that we earlier
rejected. An "unrestricted union type" in this definition has restrictions: it
excludes union types derived by non-trivial restriction from other union types,
as well as union types that include list types in their membership.
The current document uses the term "generalized atomic type", because it is
more general than atomic types.
I suppose "restricted union type" also makes sense. I don't think going back to
"unrestricted union type" for a restricted union type is an improvement.
--
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 14:56:07 UTC