-
**Reported by choeger on 17 Dec 2014 13:00 UTC**
According to the specification, the following expressions should be syntactically legal:
```mo
{ 0.0 , x for x in {1.0, 2.0, 3.0} }
```
```mo
foobar(…
-
**Reported by perost on 17 Feb 2014 13:47 UTC**
The builtin types have certain attributes such as start, fixed, etc. The common opinion seems to be that these attributes can only be set and not read, …
-
**Reported by stefanv on 25 Oct 2011 19:34 UTC**
Section 17.5.3 of Modelica 3.1 and 3.2 specifications state:
_All graphical primitives are inherited from a base class. If the primitivesVi…
-
**Reported by will on 21 Sep 2011 15:30 UTC**
The notation in the Modelica language specification is quite misleading.
On page 21 of ModelicaSpec32.pdf is written "atan2(x,y)" which is not correct ass…
-
**Reported by fcasella on 14 Dec 2016 14:12 UTC**
This MCP proposes a solution of issue #83, allowing mixed Real and non-Real variables in function inputs and outputs, as far as the derivative annotat…
-
**Reported by hubertus on 9 Sep 2010 14:27 UTC**
At Modelon we just noted that it is not possible to specifiy Protection annotations with respect to code generation using the new external licensing me…
-
**Reported by dietmarw on 10 Mar 2008 11:32 UTC**
Dear Mike,
I retrieved this issue from the an old issue tracker on our website and moved the issue here before deleting that obsolete issue tracker.
P…
-
**Reported by fcasella on 21 Apr 2009 17:18 UTC**
Section 4.4.3 of the Modelica Specification 3.0 disallows cyclic dependencies among binding equations for parameters; for example
```
parameter Real p…
-
**Reported by pharman on 10 Dec 2012 09:48 UTC**
According to #842 the use of the annotation `Evaluate=true` on a type declaration has the same effect as on the component declaration, and the MSL is d…
-
**Reported by choeger on 23 Jan 2017 12:15 UTC**
The specification does not impose an order of evaluation onto Modelica expression. Some (?) tools scalarize components, i.e. translate arrays into a li…