Brad Pierce wrote: > Another option is to remove $typename from the LRM. (Vendors could > still provide it if they wished.) What was the original requirement > that motivated standardizing $typename? Is that requirement still > considered a requirement? If so, is there a better way to satisfy the > requirement? I wouldn't even mind a half way approach of saying that a vendor shall provide a system function called $typename that works on specified forms of input (as given in 22.2) and returns a vendor defined string describing the type. But responses to your question, and my other post, asking for user input on this needs to have some time before we move too much. Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.comReceived on Thu Jun 22 12:51:44 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 22 2006 - 12:52:46 PDT