Re: [xacml-comment] Public Comment

[Anne Anderson <Anne.Anderson@sun.com>]

Joshua,

Thank you for the comment.  It might have been better if we had 
originally spec'd these functions as you suggest, bou are the first 
person to suggest this would be useful.  We can put it on a list of 
"things to consider", but we would be much more likely to consider it if 
there were a specific requirement rather than just an "it would be nice 
to".  Let's see if others want this generalization.  I'm assuming we 
would generalize the existing functions in a backwards compatible way.

Anne

comment-form@oasis-open.org wrote:
> Comment from: parcour@gmail.com
> 
> Name: Joshua Shinavier
> Title: software developer
> Organization: Soph-Ware Associates Inc.
> Regarding Specification: oasis-xacml-1.0: A14.10 (Set functions)
> 
> I'm curious whether it might be reasonable to generalize the standard intersection and union set functions to take an arbitrary number of arguments.  It seems counter-intuitive to require intersection and union to be binary functions when there is no such restriction on the number of arguments to an "and" or an "or" (their behavior is defined for more than two, for one, and even for zero arguments).  Apart from better conceptual elegance, arbitrary arity would also avoid unnecessary recursive nesting of Apply elements in intersections or unions of large numbers of expressions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: xacml-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: xacml-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> 

-- 
Anne H. Anderson               Anne.Anderson@sun.com
Sun Microsystems Labs          1-781-442-0928
Burlington, MA USA