Re: Grammar for Union Types

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