Logo etsi

ETSI's Bug Tracker
Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap | Monitor project
  
Notice: information submitted on the ETSI issue Tracker may be incorporated in ETSI publication(s) and therefore subject to the ETSI IPR policy.

View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ]
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0006648Part 01: TTCN-3 Core LanguageTechnicalpublic18-10-2013 14:3329-11-2013 13:58
ReporterAndras Kovacs 
Assigned ToIna Schieferdecker 
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilityN/A
StatusclosedResolutionfixed 
PlatformOSOS Version
Product Version 
Target Versionv4.6.1 (published 2014-06)Fixed in Versionv4.6.1 (published 2014-06) 
Summary0006648: 6.2: Value list notation should not be used for set
DescriptionIn section 6.2, the paragraph under Example 1 contains the following sentence:
"The value list notation can be used for record, record of, set and set of value notations and for arrays."

It is probably a mistake that 'set' is listed in the above sentence. Using value list notation for set would also be in contradiction to restrictions of section 6.2.2.
TagsNo tags attached.
Clause Reference(s)6.2
Source (company - Author)STF470 - Andras Kovacs
Attached Filesdocx file icon CR6648_v1.docx [^] (16,283 bytes) 29-11-2013 13:56

- Relationships

-  Notes
(0011809)
Jacob Wieland - Spirent (reporter)
21-10-2013 09:59

 I think we should drop that restriction. What is its purpose?
(0011816)
Gyorgy Rethy (reporter)
22-11-2013 14:52
edited on: 22-11-2013 14:55

 I think this is a trivial error in clause 6.2. In set, fields may be in any order; if field names are not present, no one can know that which value is assigned to which field.
(0011838)
Jacob Wieland - Spirent (reporter)
26-11-2013 16:04

 if the value-list notation is used, of course the order of declaration, same as for record types should be relevant. The any-order thing is only relevant for encoded values, on the TTCN-3 level, there is no real difference between set and record types.
(0011861)
Gyorgy Rethy (reporter)
28-11-2013 13:39
edited on: 28-11-2013 13:40

 STF discussion 2013-11-28: We can allow value list notation for set types in clause 6.2.2, semantics shall be that in this case values are assigned to fields in the sequential order of the fields in the type definition.
(0011878)
Ina Schieferdecker (reporter)
29-11-2013 13:56

 as proposed - see file

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
18-10-2013 14:33 Andras Kovacs New Issue
18-10-2013 14:33 Andras Kovacs Clause Reference(s) => 6.2
18-10-2013 14:33 Andras Kovacs Source (company - Author) => STF470 - Andras Kovacs
21-10-2013 09:59 Jacob Wieland - Spirent Note Added: 0011809
22-11-2013 14:46 Gyorgy Rethy Project TTCN-3 Change Requests => Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language
22-11-2013 14:52 Gyorgy Rethy Note Added: 0011816
22-11-2013 14:52 Gyorgy Rethy Assigned To => Ina Schieferdecker
22-11-2013 14:52 Gyorgy Rethy Status new => assigned
22-11-2013 14:52 Gyorgy Rethy Target Version => v4.6.1 (published 2014-06)
22-11-2013 14:54 Gyorgy Rethy Note Edited: 0011816
22-11-2013 14:55 Gyorgy Rethy Note Edited: 0011816
26-11-2013 16:04 Jacob Wieland - Spirent Note Added: 0011838
28-11-2013 13:39 Gyorgy Rethy Note Added: 0011861
28-11-2013 13:40 Gyorgy Rethy Note Edited: 0011861
29-11-2013 13:56 Ina Schieferdecker File Added: CR6648_v1.docx
29-11-2013 13:56 Ina Schieferdecker Note Added: 0011878
29-11-2013 13:57 Ina Schieferdecker Status assigned => resolved
29-11-2013 13:57 Ina Schieferdecker Resolution open => fixed
29-11-2013 13:57 Ina Schieferdecker Fixed in Version => v4.6.1 (published 2014-06)
29-11-2013 13:58 Ina Schieferdecker Status resolved => closed

MantisBT 1.2.14 [^]
Copyright © 2000 - 2024 MantisBT Team
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker