Re: compound datatype inheritance

Anders,

Thanks for this clarification.  See below for a further question.

Anders Berglund wrote:
>>My confusion arises from uncertainty as to what the phrase "as a unit"
>>means.  I assume that the result is 1), and that "as a unit" implies
>>that, even though only "space-before" is defined as inheriting, the
>>current state of the space-before "object" is what is inherited.
> 
> 
> You are correct in saying that the space-before "object" is what is
> inherited and thus the result is 1).
> 
> Note that the space-before "object" has, potentially, had some
> "value fixup" in case of inconsistent values (see the <space> datatype
> definition in 5.11). It is for this reason that the individual
> components are not inherited independently.
> 

Given that the use of property-value functions with compounds is 
restricted, and that the inherited value is the computed value, doesn't 
this amount to the same thing as "normal" inheritance?

> 
>>If that is so, is there any functional difference in treating short-form
>>compound properties as shorthands _with inheritance capability_, and
>>treating the specific forms of an inheritable compound as themselves
>>inheritable?

Peter
-- 
Peter B. West <http://cv.pbw.id.au/>
Folio <http://defoe.sourceforge.net/folio/> <http://folio.bkbits.net/>