Re: Priority revisited: a new primitive

[A E Lawrence <lawrence_a_e@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Gerald H. Hilderink" wrote:
> 
> We could define a new occam-like language, which defines,
> 
> PAR [.]
>   P
>   Q
> 
> ALT [.]
>   g1
>     P
>   g2
>     Q
> 
> SEQ
>   P
>   Q
> 
> where [.] can be empty (leaving out) or could express the ordering of events
> (as described by Adrian) specifying their "preference" priority. An empty
> set would mean that every event of the listed processes is equally
> prioritised. A keyword PRI replacing [.] would mean that the alphabets of
> all listed processes (or listed guards) are prioritised according to their
> index in the list; otherwise, we need to specify every alphabet. And finally
> we could specify [.].

That is a nice idea. But we better take time to digest and investigate
the ideas properly. One thing that I would like to do is to formulate
various priority patholgies in occam, and then see whether PAR PRI
really does help.  

Adrian