xacml-comment message

Subject: type-union functions

From: "Tyson, Paul H" <PTyson@bellhelicopter.textron.com>
To: <xacml-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 08:30:20 -0600

Why are these functions defined as binary operators?  (XACML 3.0-wd-06
A.3.11 Set functions.)

Consider defining a 3.0 version that accepts zero or more bags of the
same type.  This would be a marginal improvement in ease of use and
clarity of expression.

Instead of:
	(string-union (string-union bag1 bag2) bag3)

I could write:
	(string-union bag1 bag2 bag3)

--Paul Tyson