Re: [sv-ac] AC 196 - optional type spec?

If practical, it would be preferable to unify the BNF, instead of
cloning tf_port_list, and to use footnotes or LRM text to impose
special restrictions. Let's make the BNF smaller, not larger.

>As stated before to allow backward compatibility the proposal needs to have
>a BNF of its own, which steals the majority of the existing tf_port_list
BNF.

-- Brad
Received on Tue Nov 16 10:02:13 2004