Hi,
Activity diagram: loops / iterations as expansion regions
When I want to model a loop, like this:
For i=1 to 10
Do-Something // So it does it 10 times
End for
I would model the loop as a UML expansion region and set the mode = ‘iterative’.
However, while I was presenting my UML diagram to an audience, an engineer (not a UML maven) objected against the term ‘iterative’, because to him ‘iterative’ implies an iterative process wherein each step improves a result. I am also aware of this definition, but I use the UML definition and so I don’t have questions.
So …. here are a couple of definitions:
From UML v2.5.1 section 16.11.3.4, A LoopNode is a StructuredActivityNode that represents an iterative loop.
From Sparx ‘Expansion Region’: an Activity diagram, an Expansion Region encloses a group of ActivityNodes and ActivityEdges that are to be executed several times on the incoming data, once for every element in the input collection.
From Wikipedia: “Iteration is the repetition of a process in order to generate an outcome. The sequence will approach some end point or end value. Each repetition of the process is a single iteration, and the outcome of each iteration is then the starting point of the next iteration.”
IMO, I am correct. What should I say to the engineer?
Thansk
Avi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SysML Forum" group.
Public website: http://www.SysMLforum.com
To post to this group, send email to sysml...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sysmlforum+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sysmlforum?hl=en_US?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SysML Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sysmlforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sysmlforum/cb6b4bf4-d626-4403-bff3-3902d6ea9b93n%40googlegroups.com.
On 30 Jul 2021, at 09:13, avi-mak <amak...@gmail.com> wrote:
--