Re: [xacml] Functions Document again.

[Simon Godik <simon@godik.com>]

Polar,
did we agree that we want ordered 'or' etc only?
I think discussoins at f2f indicated that unordered 'or' etc must be
supported.

Why do we need on-error functions?

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Polar Humenn" <polar@syr.edu>
To: "XACML" <xacml@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 12:25 PM
Subject: [xacml] Functions Document again.


>
> "and", "or" and "n-of" now hwave the semantics of their "ordered-*"
> counter parts, and the "order-*" names have been removed.
>
> Two new functions for catching the ERROR condition.
>
> type-on-error
>
> type-sequence-on-error
>
> Each of which take two arguments, of which the second argument is a
> "default" value for the expression should evaluating the first argument
> result in ERROR.
>
> We still need specifications for all the matching and equals functions!
>
> Cheers,
> -Polar
>