> 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 --------------------------------------Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:05:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:01 UTC