ETSI's Bug Tracker - Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language
View Issue Details
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0004401Part 01: TTCN-3 Core LanguageNew Featurepublic31-10-2008 12:3810-12-2008 11:04
ReporterGyorgy Rethy 
Assigned ToIna Schieferdecker 
PriorityhighSeverityfeatureReproducibilityalways
StatusclosedResolutionfixed 
PlatformOSOS Version
Product Versionv3.3.2 (published 2008-04) 
Target Versionv4.1.1 (published 2009-06)Fixed in Versionv4.1.1 (published 2009-06) 
Clause Reference(s)6.3
Source (company - Author)L.M.Ericsson
Summary0004401: Referencing nested types of record/set ofs
DescriptionCurrently we have an unsymmetry in TTCN-3: it is allowed to reference types embedded in records and sets but we cannot refer to types nested in record ofs and set ofs. This issue has been raised by STF160 as there are many structured types are defined as nested types in the ASN.1 specs and in case of types nested in record/set ofs it is not possible to define values or templates of these types. See proposed text in the attached document. Regarding the syntax different options would be possible:
- using the index notation and ignoring the index - unpreferred as suggests referring to an instance;
- using the index notation without the index (empty square brackets) - preferred
- using the dot notation - unpreferred as inconsistent with record/set of value notation and record/set of elements do not have names, i.e. referencing via several levels of embedding would result "empty" dots like const MyRecOf... c_integer := 5;
Steps To Reproduce
Additional Information
TagsNo tags attached.
Relationships
Attached Filesdoc CRxxxx - referencing types embedded to record_set ofs.doc (1,032,704) 31-10-2008 12:38
http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=1734&type=bug
doc CR4401_referencing_types_embedded_to_record_set_ofs_v2.doc (1,042,432) 25-11-2008 09:07
http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=1766&type=bug
Issue History
Date ModifiedUsernameFieldChange
31-10-2008 12:38Gyorgy RethyNew Issue
31-10-2008 12:38Gyorgy RethyStatusnew => assigned
31-10-2008 12:38Gyorgy RethyAssigned To => Ina Schieferdecker
31-10-2008 12:38Gyorgy RethyFile Added: CRxxxx - referencing types embedded to record_set ofs.doc
31-10-2008 12:38Gyorgy RethyClause Reference(s) => 6.3
31-10-2008 12:38Gyorgy RethySource (company - Author) => L.M.Ericsson
31-10-2008 13:39tepelmannNote Added: 0007236
25-11-2008 09:06Ina SchieferdeckerNote Added: 0007398
25-11-2008 09:07Ina SchieferdeckerFile Added: CR4401_referencing_types_embedded_to_record_set_ofs_v2.doc
25-11-2008 09:07Ina SchieferdeckerAssigned ToIna Schieferdecker => Gyorgy Rethy
25-11-2008 09:07Ina SchieferdeckerResolutionopen => fixed
25-11-2008 09:07Ina SchieferdeckerTarget Version => Edition 4.1.1 (not yet published)
26-11-2008 15:30Gyorgy RethyAssigned ToGyorgy Rethy => Ina Schieferdecker
26-11-2008 15:31Gyorgy RethyNote Added: 0007453
26-11-2008 15:31Gyorgy RethyStatusassigned => resolved
10-12-2008 11:04Ina SchieferdeckerStatusresolved => closed
10-12-2008 11:04Ina SchieferdeckerFixed in Version => Edition 4.1.1 (not yet published)

Notes
(0007236)
tepelmann   
31-10-2008 13:39   
As it is dereferencing a type and the "empty" bracket notation is used in other non-TTCN-3 contexts for declarations, we would propose a further solution:

- using the index notation whereby the index is '-'
  type MyRecordOfInt[-] MyInteger;

'-' is used already in TTCN-3 for out parameters in call operations as 'placeholder', as it is in this case as well.
(0007398)
Ina Schieferdecker   
25-11-2008 09:06   
As it is about the type of the record of/set of element it is right to go via the elements - and as the element index is irrelevant here, the use of dash is an adequate choice.
(0007453)
Gyorgy Rethy   
26-11-2008 15:31   
Checked, OK.