Difference between revisions of "ECMA unfolded"
m |
m (→Motivation) |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
====Motivation==== | ====Motivation==== | ||
− | There are several situations in which the ECMA standard uses unfolded forms as a vehicle to describe semantics. When this unfolded forms need names, like in Precursor, inline agents and not isolated features, | + | There are several situations in which the ECMA standard uses unfolded forms as a vehicle to describe semantics. When this unfolded forms need names, like in Precursor, inline agents and not isolated features, hence names have an influence on the semantics of the system. An example: |
{|border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" align="center" | {|border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" align="center" |
Revision as of 12:42, 10 October 2006
Contents
Unfolding
When class D inherits from class B there is one very critical question. What form (in respect to unfolding) of B is taken into account for the inheritance semantics. Without an argument I state that it should be its completely unfolded form.
This said we can state that D inherits from the completely unfolded class B. It remains to be specified in what order D is unfolded. We will try to construct a partial order.
We list all the possible unfoldings that occur in the standard:
- 8.6.6 Definition: Unfolded Inheritance Part of a class
- 8.5.24 Definition: Unfolded form of a possibly multiple declaration
- 8.9.13 Definition: Unfolded feature list of an Only clause
- 8.9.14 Definition: Unfolded Only clause
- 8.9.24 Definition: Local unfolded form of an assertion
- 8.10.2 Definition: Unfolded form of an assertion
- 8.10.11 Definition: Relative unfolded form of a Precursor
- 8.10.13 Definition: Unfolded form of a Precursor
- 8.10.30 Definition: Unfolded redeclaration
- 8.17.9 Definition: Unfolded form of a multi-branch
- 8.17.10 Definition: Unfolded form of an interval
- 8.20.5 Definition: Unfolded Creators part of a class
- 8.20.14 Definition: Unfolded form of a creation instruction
Definition: Coupled name
Motivation
There are several situations in which the ECMA standard uses unfolded forms as a vehicle to describe semantics. When this unfolded forms need names, like in Precursor, inline agents and not isolated features, hence 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 fictitious 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 precise definition follows). Our final example would 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, g1 select f1, fict_name1, g1 end B rename f as f2, fict_name as fict_name2, g as g2 redefine f2, fict_name2, g2 end feature f1 do (agent fict_name1).call ([]) end fict_name1 do g1 := g1 + 1; print (g1) end g1: INTEGER f2 do (agent fict_name2).call ([]) end fict_name2 do g2 := g2 + 1; print (g2) end g2: INTEGER end |
The redefinitions of f1, fict_name1, g1, f2, fict_name2 and g2 come with the unfolded form of not isolated features. Please note that the unfolded form of D needs to select fict_name1 or fict_name2 for the system to be valid. But this select has no semantic influence.
Definition
A feature name n can be coupled to another feature name .
Change on renaming
The unfolded form of a renaming introduces renamings to new fictitious names for all the names coupled to one of the renamed names.
Informal:
- Example Let feature names fc1 and fc2 be coupled to name f and feature name gc be coupled to g. The following renaming:
rename f as f', g as g'
Has the unfolded form:
rename f as f', fc1 as fc1', fc2 as fc2', g as g', gc as gc'
Whereas fc1', fc2' and gc' are new unique names.
Change on select
The unfolded form of a select introduces selects of all names coupled to one the originally selected names.
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 g 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 |
Unfolded forms of A and B:
class A feature a: INTEGER f do a := a + 1 end g, gp do f end |
class B inherit A redefine g end feature g do gp end end |
Unfolded form of D:
class D inherit B rename a as a1, f as f1, g as g1, gp as gp1 redefine f1, g1, gp1 end select a1, f1, g1, gp1 end B rename a as a2, f as f2, g as g2, gp as gp2 redefine f2, g2, gp2 end feature f1 do a1 := a1 + 1 end g1 do gp1 end gp1 do f1 end f2 do a2 := a2 + 1 end g2 do gp2 end gp2 do f2 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.