Eclipse Community Forums: OCL » def initialized with alternatives (or)

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » OCL » def initialized with alternatives (or)

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

def initialized with alternatives (or) [message #987183]

Sat, 24 November 2012 08:43

Andrea Sindico

Messages: 266
Registered: November 2010

Senior Member

I need to define a def: which depends on two different alternatives in or.
Precisely I am validating a DSL and I need to retrieve the type of a variable. This depends on the where the variable was defined. It may be for instance a parameter of a method, a property of a class, a local variable. Then I thought to create a def, typed as ocl::OclElement, in the context of the Variable meta-class initialized by these three different possibilities in or. Am I doing the right thing?

Follow me on Twitter @andreasindico

Report message to a moderator

Re: def initialized with alternatives (or) [message #987190 is a reply to message #987183]

Sat, 24 November 2012 10:28

Andrea Sindico

Messages: 266
Registered: November 2010

Senior Member

A better solution may be defining a set but It seems I am making some syntactical error.
I am doing something like

def: type: Set = {variable.<the first possible element>, variable.<the second possible element>}

or

def: type: Set{} = {variable.<the first possible element>, variable.<the second possible element>}

but in both the cases I get an error.

Also as the two elements of the set are mutually exclusive would this solution be feasible?

Follow me on Twitter @andreasindico

Report message to a moderator

Re: def initialized with alternatives (or) [message #987193 is a reply to message #987190]

Sat, 24 November 2012 10:57

Ed Willink

Messages: 7670
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hi

You don't explain your problem clearly enough for me to understand "in
or" is not English.

You don't identify what errors you give or provide sufficient context to
reproduce the error.

A zipped project demonstrating your best attempt is nearly always a good
way to avoid wasting my time (and yours).

Regards

Ed Willink

On 24/11/2012 10:28, Andrea Sindico wrote:
> A better solution may be defining a set but It seems I am making some
> syntactical error.
> I am doing something like
>
> def: type: Set = {variable.<the first possible element>, variable.<the
> second possible element>}
>
> or
> def: type: Set{} = {variable.<the first possible element>,
> variable.<the second possible element>}
>
> but in both the cases I get an error.
>
> Also as the two elements of the set are mutually exclusive would this
> solution be feasible?

Report message to a moderator