Forums

* shoops <shoops@vbi.vt.edu> [2010-06-25 14:14] writes:
> Hello Lucian,
>
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 07:06:24 +0100
> Lucian Smith <lpsmith@spod-central.org> wrote:
>
> > > 3) Some simultaneously executed events have the priority object and
> > > some not.
> > > Not defined as in L2V4 and L3 currently
> >
> > Yes, except that in #3, those events with priorities must execute in
> > priority order. It's only the events without priorities that may
> > execute in any order.
>
> This is not possible. You have a set of elements of which some can be
> ordered and some not. This leads to the situation that the set cannot
> be ordered, i.e., the behavior is undefined. Every other
> interpretation would have to introduce some defaults which are
> strictly prohibited. Note that executing the events in a random order
> or partially random order as yu usggest is different than the order
> being undefined. People can easily avoid this situation by specifying
> the priority attribute for all events.

I think you're misunderstanding me. If you have six events, three with
priorities and three without:

10 7 2 X X X

The X's can be inserted anywhere, *but* the 10 must fire before the 7
which must fire before the 2.

X X X 10 7 2
X 10 X X 7 2
10 X 7 X 2 X
10 7 2 X X X

but not:

7 2 X 10 X X

There are no defaults, and the overall behavior is undefined... but the
priority-flagged events still fire in a defined order with respect to each
other.

-Lucian
____________________________________________________________
To manage your sbml-discuss list subscription, visit
https://utils.its.caltech.edu/mailman/listinfo/sbml-discuss

For a web interface to the sbml-discuss mailing list, visit
http://sbml.org/Forums/

For questions or feedback about the sbml-discuss list,
contact sbml-team@caltech.edu