On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Jacob Beard wrote:
> Please keep an eye on the www-voice thread. I think there may still be
> problems with the current step algorithm, and I'm drafting a reply to
> elaborate on this.
>
Sure.
-Rahul
> Thanks,
>
> Jake
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Rahul
Please keep an eye on the www-voice thread. I think there may still be
problems with the current step algorithm, and I'm drafting a reply to
elaborate on this.
Thanks,
Jake
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jacob Beard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jacob Beard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently working on revising scxml-js so that it implements the
> semantics defined by the step algorithm of the SCXML specification (as
> opposed to the mixture of SCXML semantics and Rhapsody semantics which
> it currently imple
Hi,
I think I have identified the source of my confusion. I thought that
function getChildStates would also return history states, but I
believe that this interpretation is incorrect, and leads to a number
of conflicts, like the one I already described. I now think that
getChildStates would return
Hi,
I'm currently working on revising scxml-js so that it implements the
semantics defined by the step algorithm of the SCXML specification (as
opposed to the mixture of SCXML semantics and Rhapsody semantics which
it currently implements). I've run into a part of the step algorithm
which is somew
