EXPRESS 1.0 FTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

EXPRESS_ — Constrain of-type for SimpleValue subclasses

  • Key: EXPRESS_-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13682
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 9.3, SimpleValues
    Unlike all of the other abstract subtypes of Instance, SimpleValue has an of-type association and none of its subclasses have specific of-type associations. This is because some SimpleValues can be values of more than one SimpleType. Accordingly, each SimpleValue subclass should have a constraint on its of-type relationships:
    For LogicalValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:LOGICAL, self->of-type)
    For NumberValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:NUMBER, self->of-type)
    For RealValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:REAL, self->of-type)
    For IntegerValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:INTEGER, self->of-type)
    For StringValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:STRING, self->of-type)
    For BinaryValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:BINARY, self->of-type)

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The type of LogicalValues is resolved by Issue 13683.
    For other SimpleValue objects, it is not a requirement that all of the possible “of-type” DataType relationships are modeled; it is only required that the “declared type” of the value is modeled. The proposed OCL rules would require that the declared type of each SimpleValue be the corresponding EXPRESS-defined SimpleType. The consensus is only to require that the value be an instance of an appropriate SimpleType: NumberValue ~ NumericType, BinaryValue ~ BinaryType, StringValue ~ StringType. These specific relationships replace the general relationship modeled as SimpleType:of-type.
    Figure 20 is replaced by Issue 13683

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT