Re: Problem with Enter States (renamed from W3C process)

I agree.  I confused the issue yesterday by thinking it was a problem with
parallel but it has nothing to do with parallel; Jake's prompt to create a
minimal test helped.

Chris


On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>wrote:

>  Ah yes, I see what you mean.  That is a valid transition and the
> algorithm won’t handle it correctly.  I’ll have to think about this a bit.
> In addDescendentStatesToEnter I think we handle this case correctly for
> parallel states, because we check if any descendent is already on the list
> before adding each default entry child.  Your example shows that we may
> need to do this for compound states as well.    You’re right that one way
> to do it would be to filter the targets, removing any that are ancestors of
> others.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ll think about this a bit and send an update around.****
>
> ** **
>
> **-          **Jim****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* chris nuernberger [mailto:cnuernber@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:54 AM
> *To:* VBWG Public (www-voice@w3.org)
> *Subject:* Problem with Enter States (renamed from W3C process)****
>
> ** **
>
> Exactly the problem I talked about.  The transition itself isn't invalid.
>  The fix is easier than I thought; ensure that if a transition has multiple
> target that none of them derive from another one of them.  If such a
> condition does exist, take the most derived target.****
>
> ** **
>
> Chris
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson ****
>



-- 
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson