UML StringExpressions, Operands and SubExpressions
In the latest UML specification for 2.5.1, the implementation in the OCL language of the overridden StringExpression::stringValue() is given at section 8.6.17.5 "Operations" on page 130:
body: if subExpression->notEmpty() then subExpression->iterate(se; stringValue: String = '' | stringValue.concat(se.stringValue())) else operand->iterate(op; stringValue: String = '' | stringValue.concat(op.stringValue())) endif
The intent of this is perfectly clear; however, for example in specifying an ordered list of function parameters, there is always some kind of separator token (usually the comma) to delimit the individual arguments passed to a function. AFAICT the OCL 'concat' operation does not supply any separator token.
Since theoretically a StringExpression's subexpressions might return their own concatenated subexpressions, ending up with some kind of nesting of operands, it seems that no separator at all would quickly lead to confusion and errors.
It doesn't seem to be specified anywhere as to whether the concatenated operands or subexpressions need to be separated by commas or perhaps some other token? There might be languages in use where something other than the comma is used (perhaps a space?), so it is conceivable that the behavior could be overridden by a Profile in some form or fashion.
Is this a defect in the specification?
OCL concat doesn't add any separators, but this no problem for stringValue since it doesn't need them. As you can see in figure 7.6 StringExpressions are mainly used to name elements that are created by binding a TemplateParameter to a LiteralString. If you want to include a separator, you can do it in the specification of the nameExpression (e.g. $foo, <Resource>, <ResourceKind>, ba$).
By the way, I tried to replicate the diagram in figure 7.6, but it seems that my tool doesn't completely support templates and name expressions. It's very likely that other tools will also fail. Seems this part of the specification has been neglected by the tool vendors.
- Do C and C++ differ on the legality of aligning pointers at runtime?
- UML StructuredClassifier::role and allRoles()
- Is copy elision mandatory (if allowed at all) in the ternary operator?
- Why does the using statement work on IEnumerator and what does it do?
- Translation limits of an identifier in C
- C++23: Is it valid to modify the elements of a `zip_view`?
- guarantees, if any, on the conservation of value representation, under low-level creation/destruction of objects
- What is the significance of 'strongly happens before' compared to '(simply) happens before'?
- What does section 5.1.2.3, paragraph 4 (in n1570.pdf) mean for null operations?
- Does implicit lifetime object creation apply before C++20?
- UML CollaborationUse ownership
- Can the thread that acquires spin-lock later happen first on the timeline?
- At what point is a base class member considered to be hidden?
- Construction and destruction order of temporary in Member Initializer List
- Discrepancy with decltype on static member-function
- C standard - const qualification of struct members
- Should the preprocessor arithmetic match the architecture targeted by the compilation?
- Can a name introduced via using-directive or using-declaration be used as elaborated-type-specifier of a friend declaration?
- When does a type become complete?
- Bitwise operators and signed types
- UML Parameter identification within ParameterSet
- What versions of C allow you to declare variables in for loops?
- C++ iterator dereference equality preservation
- Is int &ref = ref; well formed
- Is left shifting a long long considered Undefined Behavior in C?
- Is this a standard conforming way for selective constructor "inheritance"?
- UML owner(s) of ParameterSet
- Can the read-read coherence rule infer the modification order according to the read value?
- What does "\x{01}" mean in C++?
- std::construct_at and object lifetime?