Hi Sephan, Jacon, and all,
Stephan Tobies wrote:
> So, I guess this bit does indeed need clarification in the standard, and I am
> not entirely sure what was intended. Personally, I would think that there is
> no problem in treating arrays as normal aggregated types like record of, for
> example.
An array could be defined as a shorthand in-line definition of
"record of" type when a variable is declared.
This would allow processing the arrays as currently, but would not
add another (similar to record of) type to the TTCN-3 standard if
parameter passing of arrays etc is needed.
This would limit the need to define new but similar "Values" in TCI
and adding new complexity to the standard.
Best regards,
Vesa-Matti
--
Vesa-Matti Puro
OpenTTCN Oy
www.openttcn.com