> >>oh - parsable? interesting. I read that and ignored it since it said so >>little >>about what it was. why is it constrained to plain text? > >do you mean - why is the 'value' a String? It is assumed to be parsable >text - that's all. It could be XML
but if it's XML, then it's not plain text? >>because BIN is a LIST<BN>, then the head and tail take types BN and list<BN>. >>But when we come to string, we pull a fast one, and ST is actually a >>LIST<ST>. >>or ST is actually a ST. or something. So you see what I mean by we saying >>that >>we pulled a fast one. Though I think mostly we tricked ourselves. And it >>should >>be clear, that as editor of the spec, my current project is to fix that >>little mess! > >but hang on - ED has no formal type parameter - there is no way that ST >can redefine T to be ST it's a good thing that head and tail are fictional properties then. but I will be proposing to fix this. we will see how it goes Grahame - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
