> > Also, the text is this proposal places it in 22.6. I don't > think that > > is the place for it. 22.6 deals with only simple downward > hierarchical > > names and full hierarchical names. This text belongs in > either 22.7 or > > 22.8. > > I disagree. 22.7 deals with *upwards* name referencing which > is directed at resolution in an upwards manner *across* > instantiations. > 22.6 deals with general hierarchical names. 22.6.1 & 22.6.2 > are talking about how "hierarchical" names and "selects" > interact. That is a more general problem than the upwards problem. I still disagree. The proposal deals with concepts that have not yet been introduced in 22.6. > > Also, regarding "dotted name 1: The first name component is s1. > > Since > > s1 is a directly visible scope name, rule 2 applies and the > name s1.x > > is considered to be a hierarchical name," it is not clear to me > > whether and why s1 is directly visible. It would probably > be not clear > > to other users as well. > > Hmmm. Did you just miss the name "s1" on the enclosing > generate scope? I think that it is pretty clear why "s1" is > directly visible in this case -- it is the name of an enclosing scope. I did not miss it. That is precisely the point. It is not clear to me that the name of an enclosing scope is 'directly visible', whatever that means, from within the scope. Shalom --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Dec 3 09:11:06 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 03 2007 - 09:11:15 PST