Re: [PRD] Proposal for object representation (and ACTION-592 complete)

Michael Kifer wrote:
> It is not clear to me whether you want this syntax to be in Core or just in
> PRD. If the latter then things would be vastly simpler.

My understanding was that anything with a cardinality constraint would be a problem for Core. So, I drafted this proposal with PRD only in mind (hence the description of the PRD2Core fallback).

But Gary just convinced me that I had to rework that proposal to separate clearly the introduction of a cardinality constraint and that of a path expression. I am not convinced that I will end up proposing a different construct (as I believe this is what PRD needs), but I am convinced that it would make the definition semantically clearer.

But, of course, there is a clear possibility that reworking my proposal in that direction will be an illuminating experience, and that I will come up with a different set of constructs, some of which may make sense in Core :-)


Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 19:20:48 UTC