Well, I am happy to see that the current document has the syntax as
described below.
Just one minor comment: page 24, example has still "function TestStep(){
... }", which is not wrong but misleading.
I am know wondering what you mean with "... is not quite right ..." as I
can see no difference...
With best regards,
Ina.
Willcock Colin wrote:
>hmmm...Your understanding is not quite right so why
>not look at the nice link Anthony sent this morning
>which give you tha latest version with the teststeps in?
>
>BR Colin.
>
>
Original Message
>From: ext Ina Schieferdecker [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:30 AM
>To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
>Subject: Teststeps?
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>we realized that in the TTCN-3 version distributed at the MTS meeting,
>still the production rules for named alts are contained in the BNF. Even
>mor,e the examples given for teststeps are inconsistent. Therefore,
>could you please clarify the syntax for test steps.
>
>Our understanding would be:
>
>teststep MyTeststep (..) { //test step declaration, like a function
>declaration
>...
>}
>
>:
>MyTeststep (..); //test step invocation like a function invocation
>:
>
>alt {
>[]
>:
>[] MyTeststep(..); // test step invocation within an alt, only allowed
>for teststeps but not for functions
>[]
>:
>[]
>}
>
>
>Thank you in advance,
>
>Ina.
>
