Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added version to package.json and circled actors #145

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

imrefazekas
Copy link

No description provided.

@imrefazekas imrefazekas changed the title added version to package.json Added version to package.json and circled actors Jan 28, 2016
@imrefazekas
Copy link
Author

I also extended the grammar to able to express special actors drawn with ellipse.

@bramp
Copy link
Owner

bramp commented Jan 28, 2016

Would you add some tests for the new oval syntax.

Also if I read this correctly, if I prefix the actor name with o- then it becomes a oval. I wonder if that is the most obvious/sensible way to do this.

@imrefazekas
Copy link
Author

Also if I read this correctly, if I prefix the actor name with o- then it becomes a oval ---- yes. I use it to make differentiate actors dealing with internal communication or external as well. Whether they possess interface open to the public...
The signal came from the world of UML actually or at least has a good association with the connected circle of UML. :)
I do the tests asap....

@imrefazekas
Copy link
Author

Test added.

@bramp
Copy link
Owner

bramp commented Jan 28, 2016

You branch has conflicts. Can you rebase from master, so I can merge.

I will look over the code more, but I want to think more about this if this is the right syntax to be using.

@imrefazekas
Copy link
Author

Done, hopefully the correct way...

@imrefazekas
Copy link
Author

I was wondering if we could introduce some syntax to add stereotypes in some way ...

@imrefazekas
Copy link
Author

Changed the prefix to () to mark it as circle. And I also introduced <> to mark it as rhombus.
Better fitting syntax I think...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants