(j3.2006) more on J32031 equivalence of circular types

[Michael Ingrassia]

I think I left out a step.  To see that it's ambiguous, you have to
concede that

"components that agree in order, name, and attributes"

might as well say

"components that agree in order, name, type, type parameters, and attributes"

since type and type parameters are included in the notion of attributes
(first two sentences of Clause 5).

Otherwise the paragraph wouldn't explicitly say that components 
need to be of the same type.


	--Michael I.