Thanks. Not a problem, it is a cosmetic issue. I just wanted to be sure there was no other way to do it.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Holger Knublauch <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Arthur, > > the current implementation requires the arguments to be called sp:arg1, > sp:arg2 etc. This has technical reasons because at query edit time, a > function might be undefined (i.e. have no SPIN declaration) and we do not > want to make lots of additional calls to map variable names etc. This would > slow down the system, and potentially lead to invalid invocations. > > But you can simply add sp:arg6 etc (I just had a case where I needed 6 > arguments as well). And with so many arguments I agree that having > non-readable names is very inconvenient. A hack is to insert LET statements > to rename the args in the beginning. I will think about alternative > solutions for a future version... > > Regards, > Holger > > > On Feb 11, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Arthur Keen wrote: > > > My question is about how the argument order is determined in Spin > Functions: I assume the ordering for SP:arg1 through SP:arg5 when > referenced by a Spin function use the argument name to determine ordering, > so I can create additional property argument subclasses of SP:arg, namely, > myNS:arg6 ... myNS:argN and the arguments will be bound in the correct > order to the values in the Spin Function call. Is there another way to > specify argument order in a SPIN function so that domain-specific named > arguments may be used? This is purely for readability of the spin function > declaration. > > > > For example, I would like to declare the real gas pseudo time function as > a SPIN function as follows: > > > > fTa(:P1, :P2, :t1, :t2, :Gg, :Tf, :Ppc, :Tpc, :Vl, :pl, :rhoB, :phi, :Cf) > > > > instead of > > > > fTa(sp:arg1, sp:sparg2, sp:sparg3, sp:sparg4, sp:sparg5, :arg6, :arg7, > :arg8, :arg9, :arg10, :arg11, :arg12, :arg13) > > > > I have tried defining custom-named arguments, however when I bound them > to the SPIN function, they were not displayed in the order that I defined > them, which made me very uneasy, so I reverted back to the argi convention. > Perhaps it would be useful if the comment field or a label could be > displayed alongside the argument inside the constraint display name for the > argument, e.g., "Argument arg1 rhoB : xsd:float" instead of "Argument arg1 : > xsd:float" where "rhoB" could be the value assigned to an rdfs:label to > refer to the name used for the argument in the function? > > > > Arthur > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Composer Users" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<topbraid-composer-users%[email protected]> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Composer Users" group. > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<topbraid-composer-users%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en.
