This project has moved. For the latest updates, please go here.

Merge signal and activation

Coordinator
Apr 13, 2012 at 6:04 AM

An activation / deactivation always applies to the signal statement before, so why don't we change the syntax to clearly indicate that.

So instead of

a->b
activate b
b->c
b->a
deactivate b

why don't we do something like

  a->>b
  b->c
  b->>a

?

In my opinion this would make the real meaning of an activation a lot clearer.

How do you think about that?

 

 

Coordinator
Apr 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM

+1. It is more terse.

The original does support not activating on signals, and frankly, on entering their site, the first example shows exactly that. Question is, do we want to support that.

My opinion: Leave this to the user, and support both.

Coordinator
Apr 20, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Agree to support both.
Notation ->> is a bit ambiguous. <<   >> is a signal name for "new" or "create" call in classic UML.

Proposals:

 

a ->| b

a ->/ b

a ->#b

a->[b]

a->[]b