On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:01:08PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 29 Apr 2016, at 13:56, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:52:33PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> if we have > >> > >> typedef foo { > >> type enumeration { > >> enum one; > >> enum two; > >> } > >> } > >> > >> typedef bar { > >> type foo; > >> } > >> > >> what is the set of values permitted for "bar"? Is it empty or the > >> same as for "foo"? > > > > The set is { one, two } - where is the hidden catch?? > > In sec. 9.6.4 of 6020bis: > > When an existing enumeration type is restricted, the set of assigned > names in the new type MUST be a subset of the base type's set of > assigned names. The value of such an assigned name MUST NOT be > changed. > > In our case there are no names assigned in the new type "bar", i.e. empty set > (which is a subset of the base type's set). >
There is no type restriction hence there is no restriction of the value space. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
