> Clint, do you mean > var:type::default > as an alternative to Steve's > var:type=default?
No, I meant to keep var:type:default when both are present, but to change the current ambiguous syntax that allows both var:type and var:default when only one of the two is present. var:type would be retained but defaulting with no type coercion would be written as var::default > whichever form is eventually adopted, I assume the new syntax will allow > you to write the procedure call > p( , , ,a, ,b) > as > p(x=a, z=b) > > Correct? That would be an improvement in itself. No, that would be a proposal for a new feature, rather than a change to an existing feature. ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Unicon-group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
