[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the semantics of deckchairs
On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 11:41, Jim Davies wrote:
> I am not sure who said that and in what context.
> Probably me.
> That is all about the semantics of hiding and offered events not
> actually accepted (in my denotational terminology). The point is
> that a CSP(P) process can undergo internal transitions as a result
> of an offer, even if the offer is not accepted.
> Sounds like a move towards a refusal testing model. Hmm. It also
> sounds like people spending a lot of time trying to (re-)invent useful
> variations of the failures representation.
> And, in the process, missing the point entirely.
As far as I know, and please tell me if I am wrong, there is no
satisfactory way of capturing
2) infinite behaviour
in failures. I don't regard a model which is not a CPO with respect to
refinement to be satisfactory.
Overtures and hesitant offers are just a small excursion within that
approach. If you have real objections to Acceptance semantics which
explains why it is not substantially superior to Failures, please tell
me. Probably off list.
> I don't have time to give a one-week course on the subject in email
> form. (Although I might be able to arrange a substantial discount if
> you wanted to attend one.)
> In almost all realistic circumstances, "overtures" should be
> This is complete nonsense. ;^). Sorry, but it really is.
> In arriving at an adequate representation, you may need to consider
> whether unsuccessful (in some sense) attempts at communication should
> be recorded.
This is the way "eagerness" of hidden events is captured, and throws
light on that eagerness. Otherwise, we don't get standard CSP hiding.
But as I haven't defined or explained overtures in my sense, we may be
at cross purposes