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.
- OCL implementation of UML operation "Classifier::directlyUsedInterfaces()"
- Is it valid to call std::destroy_at on a unconstructed object?
- Is it mandatory to infer the type of the default template argument on each instantiation?
- Is it safe to use `vec.push_back(vec.back());`?
- Overload resolution for implicit conversion operators used in aggregate Initialization
- Why does specialization of a static variable template result in multiple definition error?
- Is it guaranteed that outer checked/unchecked context influences the behavior of lambdas created inside it?
- OCL keyword 'self' and UML Classifier::inheritedMember()
- no match for 'operator==' in GCC 12
- Why "Each constant expression shall evaluate to..." instead of "Each evaluated constant expression shall evaluate to..."?
- Why are stderr, stdin, stdout defined as macros?
- XML Schema with extension of a mixed element
- If there is [[noreturn]], then why there is no [[always_return]]?
- UML StringExpressions, Operands and SubExpressions
- UML ConnectorEnd and constraint 'role_and_part_with_port'
- UML Ports and Interfaces
- Have anonymous structs and unions in C11 been incorrectly described?
- Since a string literal is considered an lvalue, why must the binding lvalue reference be const?
- UML Class::nestedClassifier and Classifier::nestingClass
- memset_s(): What does the standard mean with this piece of text?
- GCC and MSVC accept "alignas" whereas Clang rejects it
- Comparison operator with explicit object parameter of not class type
- Using std::tie as a range for loop target
- tool do determine the value category an expression: understanding the result when using references
- C++11 introduced a standardized memory model. What does it mean? And how is it going to affect C++ programming?
- Is `extern` required to make an inline function definition externally linked?
- Does Promise.resolve(1); involve microtask queue?
- int a[] = {1,2,}; Why is a trailing comma in an initializer-list allowed?
- Making `std::get` play nice with SFINAE
- What does the standard say about how calling clear on a vector changes the capacity?