| May a Parameter have no type? [message #477308] |
Thu, 01 May 2008 06:58  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi,
the superstructure does not constrain the 'type' association of 'Parameter',
this implies that a Parameter may have no type.
In my view that's a bug and not a feature. There should be a constraint
context Parameter
type->size() = 1
or so, I'm not fluid in OCL..
Felix
|
|
|
|
| Re: May a Parameter have no type? [message #477314 is a reply to message #477312] |
Thu, 01 May 2008 12:13  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Kenn Hussey wrote:
> Felix,
>
> The way to enforce this would be via the lower bound of the
> TypedElement::type property, but I'm not sure it makes sense. Note that the
> absence of an explicit type for parameter may represent that the parameter
> is of any type, as suggested by the semantics section for TypeElement in the
> specification (p. 136 of 07-02-05):
> A typed element with no associated type may represent values of any type.
Hm, yeah.. Its a little misleading, the absence of a type somehow suggested to
me "no type"..
|
|
|
| Re: May a Parameter have no type? [message #626472 is a reply to message #477308] |
Thu, 01 May 2008 10:40 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Felix,
The way to enforce this would be via the lower bound of the
TypedElement::type property, but I'm not sure it makes sense. Note that the
absence of an explicit type for parameter may represent that the parameter
is of any type, as suggested by the semantics section for TypeElement in the
specification (p. 136 of 07-02-05):
A typed element with no associated type may represent values of any type.
Kenn
"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fvc7oe$ftt$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi,
>
> the superstructure does not constrain the 'type' association of
> 'Parameter', this implies that a Parameter may have no type.
>
> In my view that's a bug and not a feature. There should be a constraint
> context Parameter
> type->size() = 1
>
> or so, I'm not fluid in OCL..
>
> Felix
|
|
|
| Re: May a Parameter have no type? [message #626475 is a reply to message #477312] |
Thu, 01 May 2008 12:13 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Kenn Hussey wrote:
> Felix,
>
> The way to enforce this would be via the lower bound of the
> TypedElement::type property, but I'm not sure it makes sense. Note that the
> absence of an explicit type for parameter may represent that the parameter
> is of any type, as suggested by the semantics section for TypeElement in the
> specification (p. 136 of 07-02-05):
> A typed element with no associated type may represent values of any type.
Hm, yeah.. Its a little misleading, the absence of a type somehow suggested to
me "no type"..
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.07795 seconds
Home