[closed] Re: example given in section 2.1.1, need clarification

Toman_Vojtech@emc.com writes:
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> I don't understand the example given in section "2.1.1 Step 
>> names". Why 
>> does the p:choose get the name "!1.2" ? "!1.1" seems to be 
>> more coherent.
>
> I think you are right and p:choose should indeed get the name "!1.1".
> The example pipeline used to look different in the older versions of the
> spec, and the text in section 2.1.1 should be updated to be in-sync
> again.

Yes. Fixed now, thanks.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A moment's insight is sometimes worth a
http://nwalsh.com/            | life's experience.--Oliver Wendell
                              | Holmes