- From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 06:59:06 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
As I recall from the discussion at a call it was avoiding infinitely nested consequences, and that makes sense. (We at IPTC had such nested structures and implementers told us: "this does now work in a reliable way in practice". Since then we avoid that.) Further this excludes cyclic dependencies as a Duty having consequences cannot be reused as one of its consequences. To clarify this regarding my suggest wording of the consequence definition above: the re-expression of the "original Duty" as a consequence may require a few modifications: a) should the constraints be applied (again) (see #275), b) no consequences. See an example of that in https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/275#issuecomment-333751962 -- GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/267#issuecomment-334376265 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2017 06:58:55 UTC