> On 29 Apr 2016, at 17:46, Per Hedeland wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-29 17:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 16:32, Per Hedeland wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016-04-29 16:15, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:51, Per Hedeland wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-29 15:28,
On 2016-04-29 17:07, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 16:32, Per Hedeland wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-04-29 16:15, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>
On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:51, Per Hedeland wrote:
On 2016-04-29 15:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Jue
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 16:32, Per Hedeland wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-29 16:15, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:51, Per Hedeland wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016-04-29 15:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On F
On 2016-04-29 16:15, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:51, Per Hedeland wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-04-29 15:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>
On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:51, Per Hedeland wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-29 15:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Or are you saying that "type foo {}" is not th
On 2016-04-29 15:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>
>>> Or are you saying that "type foo {}" is not the same as "type foo;"?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, "type foo {}" has a restri
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 03:28:34PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >> Or are you saying that "type foo {}" is not the same as "type foo;"?
> >>
> >
>
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>> Or are you saying that "type foo {}" is not the same as "type foo;"?
>>
>
> Yes, "type foo {}" has a restriction while "type foo;" does not have a
> restricti
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> Or are you saying that "type foo {}" is not the same as "type foo;"?
>
Yes, "type foo {}" has a restriction while "type foo;" does not have a
restriction. OK, I think I see your point now that we have a case
where there is a sub
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 14:41, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:36:55PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 14:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:19:08PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
The problem h
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:36:55PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 29 Apr 2016, at 14:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:19:08PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem here is that enum statements aren't really restrictions but
> >> rat
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 14:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:19:08PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>> The problem here is that enum statements aren't really restrictions but
>> rather specify the new set of values. It would be kind of discontinuos: with
>>
>>
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:19:08PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> The problem here is that enum statements aren't really restrictions but
> rather specify the new set of values. It would be kind of discontinuos: with
>
> typedef bar {
> type foo {
>enum one;
>enum two;
> }
> }
>
>
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 14:02, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:01:08PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Apr 2016, at 13:56, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:52:33PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi,
if w
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 13:56, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:52:33PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> if we have
>>
>> typedef foo {
>> type enumeration {
>>enum one;
>>enum two;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> typedef bar {
>> type foo;
>> }
>>
>> what is
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:01:08PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 29 Apr 2016, at 13:56, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:52:33PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> if we have
> >>
> >> typedef foo {
> >> type enumeration {
> >>enu
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:52:33PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if we have
>
> typedef foo {
> type enumeration {
> enum one;
> enum two;
> }
> }
>
> typedef bar {
> type foo;
> }
>
> what is the set of values permitted for "bar"? Is it empty or the
> same as for "foo"?
Hi,
if we have
typedef foo {
type enumeration {
enum one;
enum two;
}
}
typedef bar {
type foo;
}
what is the set of values permitted for "bar"? Is it empty or the same as for
"foo"?
Lada
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
_
18 matches
Mail list logo
