[Bug 12626] Definition of "member types" of a union

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12626

--- Comment #5 from Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu> 2011-06-03 13:52:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Perhaps it might be better also to change "The datatypes that participate in
> the definition of a ·union· datatype..." to "The datatypes that contribute to
> the value space of a ·union· datatype..."?
> 
> The problem with "participate in the definition" is that for a union type
> defined by restriction, we appear to say that the base type is a member type of
> the union, because it participates in its definition.

I like MK's proposal, because I like one side effect that should not be adopted
without reailzing it:  The "datatypes that participate in the definition"
presumably are those that go into the (possibly ancestor) union definition may
have all their values removed from the union data space, but presumably these
datatypes remain member types of the restricted union under this definition. 
OTOH, if all of such a datatype's values have been removed by subsequent
restriction, they surely "no longer contribute to the value space" of the
restriction.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 13:52:56 UTC