Re: Syntax of transitions

Frank Ellermann said:
>>> is there any reason to forbid multiple actions?
>> No, no good reasons, and protocols like SIP or SCTP
>> really need multiple actions.
> A good reason would be KISS, you can split sequential
> actions using intermediary states,

You *can*, but in some cases it will obscure matters to no good end.
I'd rather have an "only one action" flag for interpreters.

> and you want the
> states written into lines with 69 characters.

Non-sequitor.

> But if the actions are simultaneously, or their order
> is irrelevant it's less clear.  If some of the actions
> (almost) always occur together you could get away with
> named sets of states.

I don't follow this either.

> Maybe introducing named sets of either states, or
> messsages, or actions makes sense.  With that you'd
> get "state or named set of states", "message or named
> set of messages", and "action or named set of actions",
> and a general concept of named sets.  Is that better ?

Named sets is an interesting extension:

    SET problems = error, warning, delay ;

but it's not really relevant to the question. I want to be able to write:

    Signal1 @ IDLE -> BUSY : "Send 101", connectSubscriber ;

without having to invent a set just to contain these two actions.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive@demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive@davros.org>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
THUS plc            |                            |

_______________________________________________
Cosmogol mailing list
Cosmogol@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol