Re: Conflicting Priorities in occam

[Adrian Lawrence <adrian.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Denis A Nicole wrote:
 > On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Adrian Lawrence wrote:
 > 
 >  Specifying the meaning of SKIP guards
 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 > > Does this pseudo-occam capture what we mean by SKIP guards in PRI ALT?
 > >
 > > [N]CHAN skip:
 > > PAR
 > >   PAR FOR i = 1 TO N                     PRI ALT FOR i = 1 TO N
 > >     skip[i] !                              SKIP
 > >   PRI ALT FOR i = 1 TO N        =            P[i]
 > >     skip[i] ?
 > >       P[i]
 > 
 > I don't think so.  The lack of a PRI on either of the PARs allows any
 > relative ordering between the output commits and the PRI ALT, so we get
 > 
 >          _ N
 >         | |   P(i)
 >          i=1
 
Yes, PRI PAR everywhere. The back of the envelope included PRI, but they
got lost on the way to the screen :-(. Unfortunately, this seems not to
generalize when there are mixed guards.
 
 Adrian 
-- 
A E Lawrence, MA., DPhil.  	adrian.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MicroProcessor Unit, 13, Banbury Road, Oxford. OX2 6NN. UK.                
Voice: (+44)-1865-273274,  Fax: (+44)-1865-273275