Date: 29 May, 2000

To: J3

From: /interop

Subject: Miscellaneous edits

References: 00-007r1, 00-192r1, 00-201



Paper 00-192r1 raises a number of potential issues. Three of these (all on

page 57 of 00-007r1 deal with TYPEALIAS. /interop believes the first and

third of these are integration issues, and that the second issue asks if a

clause is unnecessary. /interop believes it is not only unnecessary, but

wrong as a circular definition results. Edits are provided for the first

and third issues that introduced unresolved issues keyworded "Integration",

and an edit to correct the second issues.

Paper 00-201 part 2 points out typos in section 4.7, ENUMs. Edits are

provided to correct these.


[57:38-39] delete ", nor the same as any other accessible <type-alias-name>

or derived type <type-name>.

[57:41] add "J3 internal note

Unresolved issue 270: Integration

<declaration-type-spec> includes "CLASS(...)". It was not the

intent of /interop to allow classes in TYPEALIAS statements. Is

the correct fix to change <declaration-type-spec> to <type-spec>?


J3 internal note

Unresolved issue 271: Integration

Can a type alias name be used as the parent type name in an

extended type declaration (probably not), or can an parent type

of an extended type have a type alias (probably)? Should some-

thing be said (perhaps a constraint) to disallow a type alias

name from being used to specify the parent type of an extended


[59:18] change "(724)" to a section reference 7.5, "(7.5)"

[59:38] change "PARAMATER" to "PARAMETER"

[58:21,23] Add the keywords ENUM and EMUMERATOR to the index.