Hi Hongwei,
> We finished changing definitions of AUXCLASS(),POSSSUPERIORS(),
> and CLASSATTS() in MS-ADTS. The updated section is attached.
> Please review it and let us know if you see any problem.
I don't think the new definiton of POSSSUPERIORS() makes any sense. In
particular, it defines POSSSUPERIORS(O) in terms of POSSSUPERIORS(O).
Recursion is fine, but only when you recurse with a different function
argument than the one you are defining! Otherwise the recursion would
never complete.
This is what you have:
Let POSSSUPERIORS(O) be the union of
O!systemPossSuperiors
and O!possSuperiors
and POSSSUPERIORS(C) for all C in SUPCLASSES(O)
and {all C such that C!subClassOf is in POSSSUPERIORS(O)}
There are may ways to fix this. One that is simple is:
Let _POSSSUPERIORS(O) be the union of
O!systemPossSuperiors
and O!possSuperiors
and _POSSSUPERIORS(C) for all C in SUPCLASSES(O)
Let POSSSUPERIORS(O) be the union of
all C such that C!subClassOf is in _POSSSUPERIORS(O)
I'm sure you could find a neater way to handle this.
Cheers, Tridge
_______________________________________________
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol@cifs.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
