Hi Karel, First, thanks for answering my e-mail.
On Sunday 12 June 2011 18:04:23 you wrote: > the same as your previous patch. This one also assumes something > which is not in spec. Please see following snipped from the "OMG IDL > Syntax and Semantics 3" -- definitions which applies to both your > cases. You see that in both cases, your value shall inherit from > <value_name> which is just <scoped_name> and that your value may > support one or more <interface_name> which is also <scoped_name>. You are right, the syntax rules reads as you say. My fault, I did not check the syntax rules because the other orb that I am using does support this. And because it seems like a normal way to write. But while re-reading the specification, I got a doubt. On the section "7.9.1.3 Value Inheritance Specification" it says: "Each <value_name> in a <value_inheritance_spec> must be the name of a previously defined value type or an alias to a previously defined value type. Each <interface_name> in a <value_inheritance_spec> must be the name of a previously defined interface or an alias to a previously defined interface." This is not the case here? Thanks, Victor Fusco "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet." William Gibson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Mico-devel mailing list Mico-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mico-devel
