|Re: How to set return type of operation? [message #965157 is a reply to message #964742]
||Wed, 31 October 2012 02:59
|| Christian W. Damus
Registered: July 2009
"Yep" on all counts.
Although, for this particular case, I think UML actually has a
constraint (since 2.2?) that an operation must have not more than one
return parameter. Formerly, when there was more than one return, the
operation type was constrained to be unset.
On 2012-10-30 19:14:23 +0000, Ed Willink said:
> UML also allows any number of 'out' or 'inout' parameters. These lack
> coherent OCL syntax or semantics.
> Since OCL has no assignment support, I guess that an anonymous Tuple is
> unavoidable to increase the connectivity of the normal anonymous
> UML doesn't have any nested Collection types either. Both UML and OCL
> have a bit of mutual catching up to do.
> Ed Willink
> On 30/10/2012 13:04, Christian W. Damus wrote:
>> On 2012-10-30 06:48:54 +0000, Robert Wloch said:
>>> Thanks for the clarification I never thought the return value would be
>>> a parameter.
>> It used to be even better than that: an earlier UML 2.x revision
>> permitted *multiple* return parameters, which actually several modern
>> programming languages implement. But that made the operation's type
>> rather ambiguous (perhaps OCL would have interpreted it as an anonymous
>> TupleType, but UML doesn't have such construct).
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.01799 seconds