[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-02.txt: Discriminated Unions vs. Real Unions
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 12:08 PM
> 51: At first glance, it is somewhat confusing that discriminated
> unions are required while unions are just nice to have. A
> discriminated union is a more precise form of a union and hence
> support for unions will fall out when doing discriminated unions.
> And since discriminated unions are required, the nice to have
> feature of unions will fall out anyway. There is certainly the
> issue whether unions without a discriminator are desirable,
> although arbitrary unions are classified as nice to have here.
> We are confused (and hungry?)
[Dave] Do you interpret a discriminated union as being able to change the
underlying base type of an attribute? It was suggested that a "real" union
(in C for example) can change the type as well as the semantic
interpretation of an attribute (perhaps even a group of attributes). It was
mentioned that supporting a real union will require that the SMIng adds ANY
to the supported base types (which is not currently supported by SMIv2 or
SPPI). I believe that is why there are two different proposed requirements.
One for discriminated unions (based on a semantic selector for a statically
typed attribute or group of attributes) vs. real union which may also
include a base-type selector.