[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Synchronous Communication = Swap
With respect to the Sync, you get my point:
"my" Sync == "your" CSP event
>From now on, I'll call "Sync", simply "Event".
We are talking about the same thing.
It is the same thing in CSP maths, but data transfer
(the sugar) is added at language-level compared to
x2Any means, as you suggested in deed: receiver is undetermined.
x2Any can, as you suggested, be modelled in CSP.
My guess (I realize my insight might be limited...):
1. You can model x2Any in CSP, by adding a new `mathematical' construct.
2. You cannot model x2Any in CSP using the "event" which is
already part of the model. In other words: you cannot build a Process
using normal events that behaves like a one2any channel.
Claim: to do so, you need to model each "port" of the "One2Any"
as two channels; at which point the interface of the one2any process
is different from a virtual "one2any" channel.
My point: you can model it IN CSP, but not WITH CSP while keeping the
Adrian, I'm looking forward to your reaction.
(other's as well of course)