You don't. I mean, there is no standard notation for an inner class, a concept which is very much language specific. (unless UML 2.0 has introduced such a thing) Here's what I suggest: 1) Represent inner classes as regular classes if they're public 2) Don't represent inner classes if they're private 3) Represent even private inner classes as regular classes if the scope of the particular diagram is just to visualize the internals of the top-level class
Originally posted by Lasse Koskela: You don't. I mean, there is no standard notation for an inner class, a concept which is very much language specific. (unless UML 2.0 has introduced such a thing) Here's what I suggest: 1) Represent inner classes as regular classes if they're public 2) Don't represent inner classes if they're private 3) Represent even private inner classes as regular classes if the scope of the particular diagram is just to visualize the internals of the top-level class