Difference between revisions of "Minor-ECMA-problems"
(→A complex example with precursor) |
(→A complex example with precursor) |
||
Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
rename a as a2, f as f2, g as g2 end | rename a as a2, f as f2, g as g2 end | ||
feature | feature | ||
+ | end | ||
+ | </code> | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | Unolded forms of ''A'' and ''B'': | ||
+ | |||
+ | {|border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" align="center" | ||
+ | |-valign="top" -halign="center" | ||
+ | |<code>[eiffel, N] | ||
+ | class | ||
+ | A | ||
+ | feature | ||
+ | a: INTEGER | ||
+ | f, fp do a := a + 1 end | ||
+ | g do f end | ||
+ | </code> | ||
+ | | | ||
+ | <code>[eiffel, N] | ||
+ | class | ||
+ | B | ||
+ | inherit | ||
+ | A redefine g end | ||
+ | feature | ||
+ | f do fp end | ||
end | end | ||
</code> | </code> |
Revision as of 08:06, 25 September 2006
Contents
Definition: Coupled name
Motivation
There are several situations in which the ECMA standard uses unfoled forms as a vehicle to describe semantics. When this unfoled forms need names, like in Precursor, inline agents and not isolated features. These names have an influence on the semantics of the system. An example:
class B feature f do (agent do g := g + 1; print (g) end).call ([]) end g: INTEGER end |
class D inherit B rename f as f1, g as g1, select f1, g1 end B rename f as f2, g as g2 end end |
It feels natural to unfold class B first and then inherit D from its unfolded form before D is unfolded:
class B feature f do (agent fict_name).call ([]) end g: INTEGER fict_name do g := g + 1; print (g) end end |
class D inherit B rename f as f1, g as g1, select f1, g1 end B rename f as f2, g as g2 end end |
The call-equivalent of the inline-agent (here named fict_name) has a call to g which has several potential versions in D. Hence this is not a valid system. The same problem can occur with calls to Precursor. The programmer cannot do anything about it since he has no knowledge of the fictous name of the call-equivalent. There should have been some coupling between the name f and the name of the call-equivalent of the inline-agent. The unfolded form of a renaming would then also rename all the coupled name (a precice definition follows). Our final example woul become:
class B feature f do (agent fict_name).call ([]) end g: INTEGER fict_name do g := g + 1; print (g) end end |
class D inherit B rename f as f1, fict_name1, g as g1 redefine f1, fict_name1 select f1, g1, fict_name1 end B rename f as f2, fict_name as fict_name2, g as g2 redefine f2, fict_name2 end feature f1 do (agent fict_name1).call ([]) end fict_name1 do g1 := g1 + 1; print (g1) end f2 do (agent fict_name2).call ([]) end fict_name2 do g2 := g2 + 1; print (g2) end end |
The redefinitions of f1, fict_name1, f2 and fict_name2 come with the unfolded form of not isolated features. Please note that the unfolded form of D needed to select fict_name1 or fict_name2 for the system to be valid. But this select has no semantic influence.
Definition
A feature name can be coupled to the name of an other feature.
A complex example with precursor
class A feature a: INTEGER f do a := a + 1 end g do f end |
class B inherit A redefine g end feature f do Precursor end end |
class D inherit B rename a as a1, f as f1, g as g1 select a1, f1, g1 end B rename a as a2, f as f2, g as g2 end feature end |
Unolded forms of A and B:
class A feature a: INTEGER f, fp do a := a + 1 end g do f end |
class B inherit A redefine g end feature f do fp end end |
New Behaviour of renaming and select
The unfolded form of a renaming is the renaming itself plus the unfolded forms of the renamings of all the coupled names.
Precursor
The current definition of the Precursor semantics in the ECMA standard (8.10.11)