Re: product types in OCL 2.0

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Gerrit Renker (
Date: Mon 24 Feb 2003 - 14:02:46 GMT

Hi Herman,

yes you are right about the brackets -- my fault. Both sections 2.4.7
and 4.3.2 explicitly state that built-in precedences can be changed via
the use of brackets.

But even worse - you have thus proven that there is no possibility to
construct sets of k-tuples for k>2. 

I think no one will question that  a->(prod(b)->prod(c)) is
syntactically incorrect.

Given such restrictions, does it not make much more sense to use a
predicate _x_:Set(Tuple{_,_}) which can be chained without such
complexities, such that 
AxBx....xX is indeed Set(Tuple{a,b,...,x}).


 --- Herman Balsters wrote: 
> Gerrit,
> I don't think that there is any ambiguity in the definition of 
> a->prod(b)->prod(c)
> The only way that you can read it is
> (a->prod(b))->prod(c)  ( = (AxB)xC )
> because
> a->(prod(b)->prod(c))
> is syntactically not correct. Also, if you wish to represent
> Ax(BxC)  then this can be done by
> a->prod(b->prod(c))
> Do you agree?
> -herman

Gerrit Renker                     Research Assistant
Constraints Group                 Computing Technologies Centre
The Robert Gordon University      Aberdeen AB25 1HG

Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view