Eclipse Community Forums: UML2 » May a Parameter have no type?

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » UML2 » May a Parameter have no type?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

May a Parameter have no type? [message #477308]

Thu, 01 May 2008 10:58

Felix Dorner

Messages: 676
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

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

Report message to a moderator

Re: May a Parameter have no type? [message #477312 is a reply to message #477308]

Thu, 01 May 2008 14:40

Kenn Hussey

Messages: 1620
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

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

Report message to a moderator

Re: May a Parameter have no type? [message #477314 is a reply to message #477312]

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:13

Felix Dorner

Messages: 676
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

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"..

Report message to a moderator