"Dmitry Yemanov" <dimitr@...> wrote:

>
>
> Generally, I agree with the idea too. Although when I was discussing this
> feature in another forum, I suggested something like typeof(<domain>) to

be

> even more clear.

To clarify a bit. I was thinking about typeof() construct as a built-in
dynamic datatype. I.e. you may cast(something as typeof(domain)) as well as
using it in procedure parameters declaration. Quite flexible, but requires
some form of BLR [in]validation to be implemented first, IMO.


Dmitry