You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Trying to store a composition with the same name as on of its components fails. However, storing it with the same name as one of the component of one of its components succeeds.
Reproduce:
create "P" [`A`] `B`;;
create "Q" [`B`] `C`;;
join "P""""Q""";;
store "_Step1""R";;
create "S" [`C`] `D`;;
join "R""""S""C";;
store "_Step2""P";;
Atomic process P gets replaced by a composite process that has R as a component, which in turn has the atomic P as a component. This breaks R as its component P is no longer available. It also creates an undesirable recursive specification.
One could argue this should not be allowed at the level of the logic, but the proof state does not know about components of components, so it allows it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Trying to store a composition with the same name as on of its components fails. However, storing it with the same name as one of the component of one of its components succeeds.
Reproduce:
Atomic process
P
gets replaced by a composite process that hasR
as a component, which in turn has the atomicP
as a component. This breaksR
as its componentP
is no longer available. It also creates an undesirable recursive specification.One could argue this should not be allowed at the level of the logic, but the proof state does not know about components of components, so it allows it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: