Ian McNicoll wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Other than the requirement for specialisation, am I correct in > thinking that this would give us 'named choices' which I have > suggested in the past (along with named slots)? This would be very > helpful in understanding the thinking behind the choice construction > which is not always evident, particularly when selecting appropriate > an appropriate choice at template time.
yes - you could think of it like that. > > Does a similar issue apply to archetype slots? A common construct is > to place archetype slots within a cluster so that they can be 'named'. > This seems to me to unnecessarily overcomplicate the archetype. > this is certainly the wrong thing to do, and the specification already supports at-codes on slots, just that the current tools don't, or there is mixed support at best (hence this workaround). This needs to be fixed. - thomas
