| Package::makesVisible insufficiently defined as OCL? [message #477033] |
Fri, 07 March 2008 14:17  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hey,
I got another doubt about the superstructure spec. The Operation
Package::makesVisible() is defined on page 108. The text says:
The query makesVisible() defines whether a Package makes an element
visible outside itself. Elements with no visibility
and elements with public visibility are made visible.
The OCL definition is, as I understand it, lacking the check for el's
visibility status:
pre: self.member->includes(el)
makesVisible =
-- case: the element is in the package itself
(ownedMember->includes(el)) or
-- the treats package imports
-- ...
This says: If el is an ownedMember, then makesVisible(el) is true. No
matter if el's visibility is private, public, or absent! So - contrary
to the text - owned members with private visibility are also made visible!
Comments are so much welcome...
Felix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Package::makesVisible insufficiently defined as OCL? [message #477039 is a reply to message #477034] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 21:03  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Felix,
Much of the OCL in the specification is either missing, incomplete, or
incorrect. Unfortunately, the Javadoc is generated based on the comments and
OCL from the specification; we can raise an issue with the UML 2.2 RTF and
hopefully it will get fixed in the next release...
Kenn
"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fqs4vs$ji6$1@build.eclipse.org...
>I just tested the implementation. It does as I expect: private owned
>members are not made visible. Note that the API doc is similar to the OCL
>definition and also lacks (?) the !private check.
>
> Felix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Package::makesVisible insufficiently defined as OCL? [message #626155 is a reply to message #477034] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 21:03 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Felix,
Much of the OCL in the specification is either missing, incomplete, or
incorrect. Unfortunately, the Javadoc is generated based on the comments and
OCL from the specification; we can raise an issue with the UML 2.2 RTF and
hopefully it will get fixed in the next release...
Kenn
"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fqs4vs$ji6$1@build.eclipse.org...
>I just tested the implementation. It does as I expect: private owned
>members are not made visible. Note that the API doc is similar to the OCL
>definition and also lacks (?) the !private check.
>
> Felix
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.09537 seconds
Home