Re: Automatic conversion

From: Prof. Dr. Peter H. Schmitt ^lt;pschmitt@ira.uka.de>
Date: Fri 10 Mar 2006 - 15:02:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4411951B.1050401@ira.uka.de>
```My understanding is more or less what you explain below.
My question is: where is this mentioned in the OCL Standard?
(I am using the version from June 2005).
Especially, that undefined is converted to empty set I had not
seen before. Is this a tool builder's interpretation to make up for an
underspecification in the Standard or is it there?

regards

Peter

D H. Akehurst wrote:
> The difference between dot and arrow:
>
> '->' is an operator that indicates an operation on a collection object, and will convert a non collection to a collection if necessary.
>
> '.' is an operator on non collection objects. If applied to a collection it is interpreted as '->collect(x|...)' operation.
>
> Let us take the following example
>
> class Person {
>   name : String
> }
>
>   people : Set(Person)
> }
>
> If we have the following objects (please excuse the notaion used to define the variables)
>
>  p:Person = Person{name='Fred'}
>  p2:Person = Person{name='Jane'}
>  pu:Person = undefined
>
> then
>
> p.name : String = 'Fred'
> p->collect(x|x.name) = Set{p}->collect(x|x.name) = Bag{'Fred'}
> bk->collect(x|x.name) = Bag{'Fred','Jane'}
> bk.name = bk->collect(x|x.name) = Bag{'Fred','Jane'}
>
> p->forAll(x|x='Fred'):Boolean = true
> pu.name:String = undefined
> Set{undefined} = Set{}
> Set{pu} = Set{}
> pu->collect(x|x.name) = Set{pu}->collect(x|x.name) = Set{undefined}->collect(x|x.name) = Set{}->collect(x|x.name) = Bag{}
> pu->forAll(x|x='Fred'):Boolean = Set{pu}->forAll(x|x='Fred') = Set{}->forAll(x|x='Fred') = true
> p->isEmpty() = Set{p}->isEmpty() = false
> pu->isEmpty() = Set{pu}->isEmpty() = Set{}->isEmpty() = true
>
> this all seems pretty consistent to me. You just have to accept that the undefined value equates to an empty set when collection operations are applied to it (I don't know if this make sense from a formal/mathemetical perspective). And understand that an undefined value does not exist inside a collection; i.e. you cannot have a collection with an undefined value in it.
>
> Set{undefined,p} = Set{p}
>
> Hence,
>   self.person->forAll(...
> is the same as
>   Set{self.person}->forAll(...
>
> and
>   _emptyset_ -> forAll(...)
> is the same as
>   Set{_oclVoid_}->forAll(..)
> because
>   Set{_oclVoid_} = _emptyset_
>
> (I am assuming that by Set{_oclVoid_} you mean a Set containing an undefined value)
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk
>>[mailto:puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Thomas Baar
>>Sent: 10 March 2006 13:34
>>To: puml-list@cs.york.ac.uk
>>Subject: Automatic conversion
>>
>>D H. Akehurst wrote:
>>
>>>You can use the invariant
>>>
>>>context Department inv:
>>>  self.person->forAll(salary < self.maxSalaryDept)
>>>
>>>In the case where the multiplicity is [0..1].
>>>
>>>Using the '->' operator on objects that are not collections
>>automatically wraps
>>>the object in a Set.
>>>
>>>Wraping an undefined value into a set results in an empty
>>>gives true when there are no managers.
>>>
>>>
>>Dave,
>>
>>I'm very puzzled by the automatic conversion to collections,
>>it would mean
>>that, for example,  5->forAll(x| ...) would be syntactically correct!
>>What would then be the point to have two different operators
>>'.' (dot) and
>>'->' (arrow) in OCL? So far, it helped the reader to find out
>>if the source
>>expression is of object or collection type.
>>
>>
>>Another question about the emptySet <-> undefined conversion:
>>Wouldn't it be
>>wise to have the following two constraints equivalent (in case of
>>multiplicity [0..1]?
>>
>>
>>
>>context Department inv:
>>   self.person->forAll(...   -- here the object self.person
>>is automatically converted into a collection
>>
>>
>>context Department inv:
>>   Set{self.person}->forAll(...   -- here the object
>>self.person is manually converted into a collection
>>                                  -- by wrapping it with Set{  }
>>
>>
>>
>>Both versions are however not equivalent once that automatic
>>emptySet<->
>>undefinedness
>>person then
>>in case
>>
>>context Department inv: _emptyset_ -> forAll(...)
>>what evaluates always to true.
>>
>>In case of manual conversion we had
>>
>>context Department inv: Set{_oclVoid_}->forAll(..)
>>what is not always true.
>>
>>To summary: The automatic conversion of x into a collection
>>type cannot
>>be simulated by
>>Set{x}. However, this would be (at least for me) the most natural
>>semantics for the automatic conversion...
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Thomas
>>
>>
>>--
>>Dr. Thomas Baar
>>Software Engineering Laboratory
>>School of Computer and Communication Sciences EPFL
>>EPFL IC UP-LGL
>>INJ 337 (Bâtiment INJ)
>>Station 14
>>CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
>>Tel +41 21 693 2580, Fax +41 21 693 5079
>>mailto:thomas.baar@epfl.ch   http://lgl.epfl.ch/members/baar/
>>********************************************************
>>Do not miss MoDELS/UML 2006: see
>>http://www.modelsconference.org for the 9th International
>>Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems
>>(formerly the UML series of conferences)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>To remove yourself from this list please mail
>>puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk
>>with a message containing the word "unsubscribe".
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To remove yourself from this list please mail puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk
> with a message containing the word "unsubscribe".
>
>

--
Prof.Dr.P.H.Schmitt
Fakultät für Informatik
Universität Karlsruhe
```
Received on Fri Mar 10 15:03:17 2006