On 08/23/2013 05:58 PM, Thomas Beale wrote: > > Treating "units" etc as keywords is a pretty dirty way to implement > dADL (now ODIN) parsing! The property names in a C_DV_QUANTITY (or > C_DV_ORDINAL) structure shouldn't be keywords, they are just property > names, and should be collected and either compared to the RM or (what > I do) converted straight to an object by the dADL (ODIN) deserialiser.
I think it is an error in the ADL-parser, the word "units" was defined twice, once globally in all lexical states, once locally in a specific lexical state. (I don't know if globally and locally are right expressions in the context of JJ, I just call it that way for now.) The globally definition was interfering with all use of the word "units" in an archetype. So I removed it, and there were no side-effects, I could see. Maybe there are. I hope not. The ADL-parser is a fine piece of software, it takes every data-type, every-attribute, as long as the syntax is OK. It really is a pleasure to work with it, and it gives many opportunities. Except for some small errors, like this one. As I understand, the removal of C_DvQuantity and other AOP constructs is a good development, because it removes exceptional circumstances for specific domain-types and makes the ADL-parser even more generic. Than, ADL will be (concerning the supporting software) a fully generic (not depending on a specific reference model) archetype definition language. I think lots of opportunities will arise. Bert
