Re: Ada202X: Easy to use "UML private"-like components

[Martin <martin@thedowies.com>]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 3:39:22 PM UTC+1, Simon Wright wrote:

> [stuff that Google Groups mangled even more horrifically than usual!]

It really is mangling stuff up...might be this PC...


> Given that the UML private/protected distinction is only relevant to
> inheritance, I'd have thought it would be irrelevant to safety-critical
> systems!

Depends on what you can agree with your IV&V.


> I have to ask, why? We have profiles to state what UML constructs will
> have meaning in the translation, and what that meaning will be. Other
> constructs - well, I'd forbid them on the grounds that no two team
> members will have the same opinion as to what they mean, and they'll
> probably get translated (if at all) into something different again.

But currently we have no *standard* profiles...but we do have various
in-house company profiles that are *very* similar.


> Always seemed to me that people went overboard with that; why did they
> feel the need to stereotype a class «Ada:Task» when it could just be
> marked _active_? (actually, there is a reason for using a stereotype,
> which is that tags are associated with stereotypes, and you'll need
> tags for {priority} and {stack}; but why not use plain «active»?).

I see what you mean...everything single thing tended to have a stereotype.

I think now we'll see a bit of that again (if we get UML tools to support
Ada2012!), with everything having an "aspect" stereotype/tag!! :-)


> Interest has been raised in UML/Ada recently Oh, where?

Here! Old projects never die...they just get re-hosted...and updated! :-)

-- Martin