Re: Priority modeling with CSP?

[Jim Davies <Jim.Davies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian says:

   I forgot to add that I think the above identification of priority and time 
   only applies in an interleaving semantics. Of course, original pure CSP is 
   based on an interleaving semantics. Indeed, that is one gloss we can give 
   nowadays to the word "sequential" in the name which we may otherwise think 
   to be an anachronism.

   But when we are modelling a synchronous circuit in full detail, 
   interleaving semantics is inadequate. But it is possible to add true 
   concurrency into CSP with very little change including retention of traces.

And, (genuinely!) without wishing to start a debate, but simply
wishing to indicate a divergence in views, I would disagree.  

I think that there is good reason for wishing to distinguish such a
notation.  Calling it CSP suggests that it has the same (fundamental)
notion of event as CSP, which it most certainly does not.

It may be exactly the notation that you want to use.  Which is great.
Fine.  But it really isn't CSP.  

And it isn't a question of adequacy either.  Your notation would allow
the creation of a description that was fully abstract when CSP would
permit something that was merely adequate (and arguably not fully
abstract).

      All this works out with very little change to standard CSP. 

I still think you should find another name for the notation.  

Jim