Re: [poe] Harmonise how a Duty with consequences should be evaluated

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

GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 5 October 2017 06:58:55 UTC