Issue 8937: Notation for accessing class operations is inconsistent (ocl2-rtf) Source: International Business Machines (Dr. Tracy Gardner, tgardner@uk.ibm.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The OCL 2.0 spec is inconsistent on whether class operations, including predefined operations, should be accessed using '.' or '::' notation. E.g. should it be Person.allInstances() or Person::allInstances() The spec uses Person.allInstances() in the text, but the concrete syntax specifies '::'. It seems that most tools have adopted the '.' notation used in the examples which is also backwards compatible with previous versions of OCL. There has also been some adoption of the '::' notation, for example in Warmer and Kleppe's OCL book, see: http://www.klasse.nl/english/boeken/ocl-book-errata.pdf Note: This issue was originally pointed out by Anthony Shuttleworth of Paranor. Proposed solution: The '.' notation is widely used and backwards compatible with previous versions of OCL. It should not be made invalid in OCL 2.0. It may be appropriate to also support the '::' notation if this has been widely adopted. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 21, 2005: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: OCL 2.0 RTF Issue: Notation for accessing class operations in inconsistent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Tracy Gardner Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:46:33 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML067/06/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF247 | January 6, 2005) at 21/07/2005 09:46:33, Serialize complete at 21/07/2005 09:46:33 Issue: Notation for accessing class operations is inconsistent The OCL 2.0 spec is inconsistent on whether class operations, including predefined operations, should be accessed using '.' or '::' notation. E.g. should it be Person.allInstances() or Person::allInstances() The spec uses Person.allInstances() in the text, but the concrete syntax specifies '::'. It seems that most tools have adopted the '.' notation used in the examples which is also backwards compatible with previous versions of OCL. There has also been some adoption of the '::' notation, for example in Warmer and Kleppe's OCL book, see: http://www.klasse.nl/english/boeken/ocl-book-errata.pdf Note: This issue was originally pointed out by Anthony Shuttleworth of Paranor. Proposed solution: The '.' notation is widely used and backwards compatible with previous versions of OCL. It should not be made invalid in OCL 2.0. It may be appropriate to also support the '::' notation if this has been widely adopted. Dr Tracy Gardner MP 154, IBM Hursley, Winchester, SO21 2JN, UK tel:44 (0)1962 817329, internal: 7-247329