Re: a question about framing test 16

> On 2016-04-05, at 19:11, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On 03/30/2016 05:11 PM, james anderson wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2016-03-30, at 20:53, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com
>>> <mailto:dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 03/30/2016 12:09 PM, james anderson wrote:
>>>> good afternoon;
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Does this adequately explain how to use these flags?
>> 
>> you describe the embed flag. ok i can follow that. my question was
>> about the effects of a type constraint, whether explicit or
>> duck-types. as far as i could tell from the tests, any apparent type
>> constraint had no effect. that was the original question.
>> 
> 
> When a frame is applied to the dataset, each matching node that is found
> will be included as a root of an output tree. Subframes may specified as
> values for particular properties in the frame.

> 
> For each property of a matching node, its associated subframe will be
> used on the set of nodes that are related via that property. If no
> subframe is specified, an implicit subframe will be generated with no
> constraints but that inherits any `@` flags set in its parent frame.

this means, the @type constraint would be inherited, but the member template would not?

> [�]
> 
> As mentioned above, type constraints are not "inherited" by subframes,
> so children will match without meeting that constraint.

this gets closer to the question.
does this mean �duck type� constraints are not inherited as the member template is not inherited, but an @type would be inherited, as the generated frame "inherits any `@` flags�?
this is the behavior which i believe i had not seen in the tests.
i may have misconstrued the results.
in any case, if that is the intent, it is a clear implementation requirement.

best regards, from berlin,
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com