Extend spec syntax with optional and required field indications.

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Priority: High
    • Shorthand (FHIR)
    • 0.12.0 [deprecated]
    • FHIR Infrastructure
    • Language Reference
    • 3.3.7
    • Hide

      Find a way to indicate optional items in our abstract syntax. It might or might not be the approach suggested by the reviewer.

      Pre-applied. The pseudo-grammar now uses italics to indicate optional items.

      Show
      Find a way to indicate optional items in our abstract syntax. It might or might not be the approach suggested by the reviewer. Pre-applied. The pseudo-grammar now uses italics to indicate optional items.
    • Moesel/Rhodes 11-0-1
    • Enhancement
    • Compatible, substantive

      Maybe we should also indicate this in the syntax.

      {..}

      required <….> optional.

      Existing Wording:

      The shorthand syntax to define an inline extension is:

      • {extension element path}

        contains

        {extensionSliceName1}

        {card1}

        {flags1}

        and

        {extensionSliceName2}

        {card2}

        {flags2}

        ...
        In both styles, the cardinality is required, and flags are optional. Adding an extension below the root level is achieved by giving the full path to the extension array to be sliced.

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Bas van den Heuvel
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: