28 Jun
2007
28 Jun
'07
11:54 p.m.
Hi Martin,
I have some questions/remarks regarding the picture:
- What does Association.statement point to?
- Is there any particular purpose for the Context class?
- Should File and Directory have modifiers?
- It seems to me that to model the Associations uniformly, you
deliberately do not use real static typing for from and to :). The
same goes for parent. Am I right?
- Instead of parent, I propose container, because parent is
overloaded with respect to inheritance (e.g., parent class).
- Instead of from and to, would you mind having full names (e.g.,
sender, accessor) or do you have a particular reason for having them
like this?
Cheers,
Doru
On Jun 28, 2007, at 7:14 PM, Adrian Kuhn wrote:
To our saving, I'd like to precise that this
string is in fact a
Symbol, which is (more or less) the same as an Enumeration in EMF.
Hence my question @Martin, could you also live with an Enumeration
instead of an Integer?
cheers,
AA
On 28 Jun 2007, at 17:33 , Tudor Girba wrote:
--
www.iam.unibe.ch/~girba
www.iam.unibe.ch/~girba/blog/
"Problem solving efficiency grows with the abstractness level of
problem understanding."
Hi,
That is nice, because we ended up with a similar solution, but
instead of an integer we use a string. When the data is unknown, we
do not specify it.
Doru
On Jun 28, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>> There are some differences in naming that can be easily fixed, such
>> as we use "parent" instead of "belongsTo". The other main
>> difference
>> concerns modifiers of entities. We use an integer to represent the
>> scope, static, abstract, etc. modifier of classes, methods, and
>> attributes instead of having extra attributes.
>
> Indeed this would be an idea. Do you have a way to say that a value
> is unknown
> For example I want to say that a method is a getter but I could
> also want to say that it is
> not known that it is a getter that is different from it is not a
> getter.