Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!gec-rl-hrc.co.uk!smithg
From: smithg@gec-rl-hrc.co.uk (Graeme Smith, ** ROOT **)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.dev-environ
Subject: Re:  bug in ISODE-5.0 ?
Message-ID: <8906191233.aa06736@lemon.gec-rl-hrc.co.uk>
Date: 19 Jun 89 12:33:55 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 48

> 
> Does anyone know if this is a bug in ISODE-5.0 ?
> 
> When defining a ROSE 'OPERATION', the syntax for the 'ARGUMENT' field
> (according to the ROSE macro definitions in X.219) is:
> 
> -------
> Argument ::= ARGUMENT NamedType | empty
> 
> -------
> and (from X.208) the relevent ASN.1 is:
> 
> -------
> NamedType ::= identifier Type | Type | SelectionType
> 
> Type ::= BuiltinType | DefinedType | SubType
> 
> BuiltinType ::= ... | AnyType | ... -- just look at AnyType
> 
> AnyType ::= ANY | ANY DEFINED BY identifier
>  
> -------

This is not an answer to the bug, it is just a comment about the ROSE
macro, NamedType is not taken from X.208, it is defined in the OPERATION
MACRO itself, as

  NamedType ::= identifier type | type

------------------------------------------------------------------

A Question

Why should the following code cause the error 'undefined type: 64'
in rosy, and posy, and work fine with pepy?

	Test1 DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

	Type1 ::= REAL

	END

I suppose I should really have sent it to BUG-ISODE, but its not up
to me to say whether its a bug or a feature!!!

Thanks in Advance

G R Smith