Re: Literals: lexical spaces and value spaces

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

[...]


>>>The reason why a range definition cannot be descriptive
>>>of non-locally typed literals, is because lexical form
>>>is specific to a given data type, and the binding of
>>>a value to a given property may occur by various means
>>>and one can end up with a literal value having a lexical
>>>form that is not compatible with the data type of the
>>>property.
>>>
>>
>>Please can we have at least one concrete example, analysed 
>>for each of the three 
>>proposals S, P, X.
>>
>>Brian
>>
> 
> Perhaps I'm not understanding the S and P proposals, but
> I don't see how any examples can be created that are
> relevant to any of the proposals, as the S P and X
> proposals are about attaching type to literals, right?
> 
> What I'm talking about is when there is *no* type attached
> locally to the literal. It's just the literal. 
> 
> What am I missing here?


You have asserted:

   >>>and one can end up with a literal value having a lexical
   >>>form that is not compatible with the data type of the
   >>>property.

Please show how that can occur with each of the three proposals, P, S, and X.

Brian

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 13:03:23 UTC