DDSXTY12 — Proposed type-naming scheme is far from Robust

The naming scheme proposed in section 7.2.2.3.4 is far from Robust, since the prefixes used to identify a collection may clash with the names of a user defined type. For example: what is a user has created a type called sequence_10, and he creates a sequence of 10 elements from this? The resulting typename would then become sequence_10_sequence_10, for which the parser will assume it is now a 2-dimensional sequence without element type.

To make robust type names, we should use special characters that are not allowed in the definition of user-defined type names, e.g. sequence<10, sequence_10> or something similar.

After applying the resolution of Issue 100 this is no longer a problem

The problem arises from the fact that TypeObject of every type had to have a name for every types, those names had to be unique and match across implementations .

However DDSXTY12-100 modified the TypeObject and now anonymous collection types no longer need a name.

The issue is merged with DDSXTY12-100 so that as part of that resolution the section that talks about naming the anonymous types can be removed as it is no longer needed.