Thanks, Tony.
You have added yet another entry to my growing list of UML features not
(fully) supported in Rose. In the Amigos' _The Unified Modeling Language
Reference Manual_ the following is the last paragraph in the "Encyclopedia
of Terms" entry on the semantics of the «utility» stereotype:
"This construct is provided for compatibility with non-object-oriented
languages, such as C."
---------------------------------------
Patrick,
It appears that the UML answer to the original question is "Yes" (or at
least, "Don't let me (UML) stand in the way"). Why is it that the Rational
Rose answer is "No"?
-- Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Picarello, Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 4:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: (ROSE) How to include C functions while reverse engineering
I would think Rose could place free functions into a Class utility... after
all, that's what it is there for: to model methods not belonging to any
specifis Class.
-Tony
[[remainder trimmed -- rhg]]
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Kennedy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 4:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: (ROSE) How to include C functions while reverse engineering
Yes and No depending upon exactly what you are after.
[[remainder trimmed -- rhg]]
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
*************************************************************************
