RE: Unions: canonical lexical representation

> Please note that my previous email intended to raise
> the issue in relation to PSVI contributions.  Whenever
> a value V of a datatype D *can* be represented in
> (non-canonical) lexical representation but *cannot* be
> represented in canonical lexical representation,
> certain contributions to the PSVI (say, the one for
> default attributes) will be either impossible or wrong.

Right.  I seem to recall that there are some plans to change the mechanics 
of default value handling to avoid dependencies on canonical forms in 
future releases, but I can't offhand find the reference for any such 
proposals.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------