On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 11:11, Andy Le <[email protected]> wrote: > I may say: > > If enums are used in a Union, they must NOT use the same symbols > > Is that OK, Roger? >
I'm not sure that it is OK. The problem is wider than just enums - AFAICS it applies to record and fixed types too, because they're named types - more than one of a record or fixed type is allowed in a union, but the default-value representation doesn't allow distinguishing between them. The ideal solution coming from a fresh start would be to use exactly the same representation for default values as for the JSON encoding, but I appreciate that backward-compatibility concerns would make that difficult or impossible to do. > On 2020/03/23 09:44:45, roger peppe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 09:09, Andy Le <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Roger, > > > > > > Instead of trying to modify the spec, is it easier for us to discard > > > schemas with such ambiguity? > > > > > > That certainly sounds like a reasonable approach to me. How would you > word > > the definition of ambiguity for this purpose? > > >
