Re: Event survey #1 of 3: adding priorities to events
25 Jun '10 13:05
* Stefan Hoops <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2010-06-25 21:00] writes:
> Hello Lucian,
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:53:52 +0100
> Lucian Smith <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I actually completely disagree with this philosophy. We should
> > either define what happens (even if only to say 'it is up to you, and
> > a modeller cannot rely on any one thing happening', as we do now with
> > simultaneous events), or we should declare that it is actually
> > illegal.
> Yes, we should define what happens.
> The only difference is that you are
> specifying an algorithm which resolves the situation
I was not trying to do that.
> whereas I say that
> we should simply say that this is undefined.
I *was* trying to say this. So we agree after all! yay!