[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: multiple values

>    Note that I'm not asking for a requirement that "(values e)" be
>    distinct from "e", only that we not require that "(values e)" be
>    the same as "e".  So it doesn't rule out an implementation that
>    automatically truncates multiple values.
> I must be missing something.  How does the requirement that "(values e)" and
> "e" be the same rule out an implementation the automatically truncates? 

It doesn't!  However, among those who want to be allowed to automatically
trucate multiple values, there seems to be an impression that "(values e)"
must be the same as "e" in order for them to to do so.  I was merely
pointing out that allowing "(values e)" and "e" to be different does not
preclude their implementations from treating them the same and hence does
not preclude them from implementing automatic truncation.