ETSI's Bug Tracker - Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language
View Issue Details

ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update
0000395 | Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language | New Feature | public | 24-11-2006 13:29 | 12-12-2008 11:53

Reporter | Stephan Schulz |
Assigned To |  |
Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A
Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix |
Platform |  | OS |  | OS Version |
Product Version | v2.2.1 (published 2003-02) |
Target Version | v3.1.1 (published 2005-06) | Fixed in Version |  |
Clause Reference(s) | Reference to Section 19.7
Source (company - Author) | Singh Arvinder , Flextronics Software Systems

Summary | 0000395: Functionality of FOR Loop

Description

Hi, I have been using TTCN 3 for writing scripts and writing behaviour of different layers in UTRAN. I wish to clarify something from your side regarding TTCN3 Core Language ref : ETSI ES 201 873-1 It seems to me that in TTCN3 language , there is INCOMPLETE support for FOR loops. There is a limitation with the supported FOR statement. It does not support usage of multiple counters in the same FOR loop I want to enquire whether TTCN3 supports multiple index assignments/initialization and multiple check statements in the same FOR statement . For Example, for( i:=0, j:=0, k :=0; i< maxValue, j < maxValue, k < maxValue ; i := i+1, j:= j+1, k := k+1){ ... ... ... } does not compile in TTCN3. While the following code compiles. for( i:=0; i< maxValue; i := i+1){ ... ... ... } for( j:=0; j< maxValue; j:= j+1){ ... ... ... } for( k:=0; k< maxValue; k: = k+1){ ... ... ... }

Steps To Reproduce |
Additional Information |
Tags | No tags attached.
Relationships |
Attached Files |

Issue History
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change
24-11-2006 13:29 | Stephan Schulz | New Issue |
24-11-2006 13:29 | Stephan Schulz | Clause Reference(s) | => Reference to Section 19.7
24-11-2006 13:29 | Stephan Schulz | Source (company - Author) | => Singh Arvinder , Flextronics Software Systems
24-11-2006 13:30 | Stephan Schulz | Status | new => closed
24-11-2006 13:30 | Stephan Schulz | Note Added: 0000311 |
24-11-2006 13:30 | Stephan Schulz | Resolution | open => won't fix
12-12-2008 11:53 | Ina Schieferdecker | Target Version | => Edition 3.1.1

Notes

(0000311)
Stephan Schulz
24-11-2006 13:30

Rejected. Would complicate the semantics significantly while considered to be a rare case