Issue 4922: Pins in class semantics (action-semantics-ftf) Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Sridhar Iyengar, siyengar@us.ibm.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: [Sridhar Iyengar] 37. Page 2-274 : Changes to semantics of Class "a method realizing ... parameters of kind in and out match input pins...". For some one not concerned with implementing Action Semantics - it is an optional compliance point after all, adding this text to the basic Class specification causes additional confusion because this introduces new terminology 'pins' without providing appropriate context. This text can simply be in the Actions package specifciation and reference parameters without any loss of information. If for some reason submitters believe this explanatory text is important, please refer to the Action Semantics spec sections to provide additional context that explains why this information is relevant. [Conrad] BTW, the relation of parameters to pins is added to the seventh paragraph of the semantics of Class on page 2-74, starting with a modification of the seventh sentence (see asterisks) A method realizing an operation has the same signature as the operation and *match those* of a procedure implementing the specification of the operation. Pins of procedures have two direction: in and out, while method and operation parameters have direction in, out, inout, and return. Resolution: accept Revised Text: Moved the following text from the semantic description of Class in the Core chapter to the end of the description for the Procedure entry in the Action Foundation chapter: Pins of procedures have two directions: in and out, while method and operation parameters have direction in, out, inout, and return. Since parameters and pins are ordered on methods and procedures respectively, the parameters of methods can be matched to pins on procedures unambiguously, assuming the last output pin is matched to the return parameter. Parameters of kind in and inout match input pins, while parameters of kind out, inout, and return match output pins. Actions taken: March 5, 2002: received issue December 11, 2002: closed issue Discussion: Move text to description of Procedure to eliminate forward reference End of Annotations:===== Summary: Pins in class semantics Text: [Sridhar Iyengar] 37. Page 2-274 : Changes to semantics of Class "a method realizing ... parameters of kind in and out match input pins...". For some one not concerned with implementing Action Semantics - it is an optional compliance point after all, adding this text to the basic Class specification causes additional confusion because this introduces new terminology 'pins' without providing appropriate context. This text can simply be in the Actions package specifciation and reference parameters without any loss of information. If for some reason submitters believe this explanatory text is important, please refer to the Action Semantics spec sections to provide additional context that explains why this information is relevant. [Conrad] BTW, the relation of parameters to pins is added to the seventh paragraph of the semantics of Class on page 2-74, starting with a modification of the seventh sentence (see asterisks) A method realizing an operation has the same signature as the operation and *match those* of a procedure implementing the specification of the operation. Pins of procedures have two direction: in and out, while method and operation parameters have direction in, out, inout, and return. Summary: Pins in class semantics Text: [Sridhar Iyengar] 37. Page 2-274 : Changes to semantics of Class "a method realizing ... parameters of kind in and out match input pins...". For some one not concerned with implementing Action Semantics - it is an optional compliance point after all, adding this text to the basic Class specification causes additional confusion because this introduces new terminology 'pins' without providing appropriate context. This text can simply be in the Actions package specifciation and reference parameters without any loss of information. If for some reason submitters believe this explanatory text is important, please refer to the Action Semantics spec sections to provide additional context that explains why this information is relevant. [Conrad] BTW, the relation of parameters to pins is added to the seventh paragraph of the semantics of Class on page 2-74, starting with a modification of the seventh sentence (see asterisks) A method realizing an operation has the same signature as the operation and *match those* of a procedure implementing the specification of the operation. Pins of procedures have two direction: in and out, while method and operation parameters have direction in, out, inout, and return. From: "Rumbaugh, James" To: conrad.bock@kabira.com, ActionFTF Subject: RE: Action FTF assignments Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:49:35 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Conrad, I need the model token to update the Computation Classes Metamodel diagram (minor changes). Where is the model itself (Conrad, you sent the reference to the archive model, where is the updatable model)? When I fix this diagram, I will be complete with my changes to the FTF files. Also, I was assigned issue 4922, but this requires a change to Procedure, which is in ActionFoundation, which Steve was assigned. I cut the offending lines from the core UML Class text. They need to be inserted somewhere in Procedure, according to the issue resolution list. I will forward the updated sem_2a_core.fm file with my other files. Here is the text I cut: Pins of procedures have two direction: in and out, while method and operation parameters have direction in, out, inout, and return. Since parameters and pins are ordered on methods and procedures respectively, the parameters of methods can be matched to pins on procedures unambiguously, assuming the last output pin is matched to the return parameter. Parameters of kind in and inout match input pins, while parameters of kind out, inout, and return match output pins. - Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Conrad Bock [mailto:conrad.bock@kabira.com] > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 6:35 AM > To: ActionFTF > Subject: Action FTF assignments > > > Hi guys, > > Here are the action FTF assignments. See the file with your name > postfixed. > > Steve: Action Foundation > Ed: Composite Actions > Conrad: Read/Write Actions > Jim: Computation, Messaging, Collections, Jump. > > RECORD ALL CHANGES IN REVISED TEXT ENTRY OF YOUR ASSIGNMENT FILE (OMG > requirement), and return to me. > > > Check with the author if you want to modify their chapter. > Let everyone > know if you want the model token. > > File pointers below. Return them to me. > > Thanks, > > Conrad