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

ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update
0006648 | Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language | Technical | public | 18-10-2013 14:33 | 29-11-2013 13:58

Reporter | Andras Kovacs |
Assigned To | Ina Schieferdecker |
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | N/A
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed |
Platform |  | OS |  | OS Version |
Product Version |  |
Target Version | v4.6.1 (published 2014-06) | Fixed in Version | v4.6.1 (published 2014-06) |
Clause Reference(s) | 6.2
Source (company - Author) | STF470 - Andras Kovacs

Summary | 0006648: 6.2: Value list notation should not be used for set
Description | In 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.
Steps To Reproduce |
Additional Information |
Tags | No tags attached.
Relationships |
Attached Files | CR6648_v1.docx (16,283) 29-11-2013 13:56 http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=2968&type=bug

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

Notes

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

I think we should drop that restriction. What is its purpose?

(0011816)
Gyorgy Rethy
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
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
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
29-11-2013 13:56

as proposed - see file