RE: the constraint {xor}



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

GERARD Sebastien 166342 (GERARD@ortolan.cea.fr)
Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:43:11 +0100


Is this OCL statement A.allInstances->forAll(a | B.allInstances->forAll(b | a.rCA->intersection(b.rCB)->isEmpty not equal to use the constraint {xor} attached to both associations?? Sebastien. -----Message d'origine----- De : Mark Richters [mailto:mr@informatik.uni-bremen.de] Envoyé : mardi 8 février 2000 16:25 À : puml-list@cs.york.ac.uk Objet : Re: the constraint {xor} GERARD Sebastien 166342 <GERARD@ortolan.cea.fr> writes: > > rCA rCB > |A|------->|C|<-------|B| > aRC aCB > 2) My second question is about the specification of an OCL statement > I have some trouble to write. I would like to express that the > instance a of A and the instance b of B may share the use of the > instance c of C. The way I understand your question, this should be the default in UML. Without extra constraints both a and b may refer to the same object(s) c. If a and b must _not_ share the same C instances, then you would have to write a constraint, e.g. like this A.allInstances->forAll(a | B.allInstances->forAll(b | a.rCA->intersection(b.rCB)->isEmpty Regards, Mark -- Mark Richters (mr@informatik.uni-bremen.de) To remove yourself from this list please mail puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk with a message containing the word "unsubscribe".


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view