Subject: Re: long method signatures in uml class diagrams
Date: 14 Oct 2002 09:55:45 -0500
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2002 14:35:51 -0500, Lars Clausen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> We obviously don't want to blindly insert linebreaks everywhere we can,
>> as then the objects would just be too tall rather than too wide. I
>> could probably cook up a little pretty-printer that has some idea about
>> when it'd be good to break lines.
> If somebody wants to use the UML class this way, he's going to need a
> long and short form IMO. Maybe the user could provide a "display string"
> to override the complete representation of a function. If the UML class
> actually understood C++, it would have enough information to offer
> gradations of detail, choosing among:
> Class name
> Class template parameters
> Data member names
> Data member types
> Function names
> Function template parameters
> Function parameter types
> Function parameter names
> Function return types
> I realize this is empty noodling, but the UML class is such a "hairball"
> (quoting Cyrille) and in such need of extension in several directions,
> that it's bound to be replaced one of these days, when someone gets
The best way to go about that would be to look into the more complex
properties and get them working. That should make it a lot easier to make
a new class object.
> Slay any dragons yesterday? Rescue any damsels? (No and yes,
> respectively, I hope.)
No dragons on the field (and besides, they're an endangered species). Did
rescue a damsel or two who were fighting off overpowering numbers of evil
foemen (and foewomen:). Beautiful day for it, too.
Lars Clausen (http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause)| HŚrdgrim of Numenor
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I |----------------------------
will defend to the death your right to say it." | Where are we going, and
--Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire | what's with the handbasket?