[Moose-dev] Re: Bug in FAMIX 2.2

[Stéphane Ducasse]

>
> Without looking at the FAMIX2.2 specification, just of the top of my
> head, if superclass and subclass are defined as opposites in the
> inheritance definition, this is a wrong usage of opposite. Opposite is
> used as such in mse:
>
> (MSE.Class (id: 1 )
>   (.. (MSE.Property (id: 2)
>         (opposite (idref: 4))
>         (type (idref: 3))
>         ...)))
>
> (MSE.Class (id: 3 )
>   (.. (MSE.Property (id: 4)
>         (opposite (idref: 2))
>         (type (idref: 1))
>         ...)))
>
> As you can see, the type of the opposite is always the Class in which
> the "opposited: property is embedded. Which doesn't match for those 2
> properties, since they are embedded in InheritanceDefinition, not in
> Class.

I see.
Adrian how do you detect the problems? running an OCL constraints  
interpreter?

this is good that you use now constraints.

>
>
>>>> - Opposites do not match: FAMIX.Class.incomingInheritance
>>>> - Opposites do not match: FAMIX.Class.outgoingInheritance
>>>
>>> Could we change the name outgoingInhertiance because this is
>>> terrible. Consistent is good but not at that price.
>>
>> generalizing...?
>> specializing...?


superclass, subclass :)
>>
>>>> - Container must be single-values: FAMIX.Class.method
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> AA
>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> Moose-dev at iam.unibe.ch
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev at iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>