Closed danionita closed 7 years ago
The port behaviour enforced in the editor was revised since this issue was posted. It's not the same as the original editor but it's (somewhat) close. Afaik we want to reproduce the previous editor's behaviour as good as possible, right? How should we proceed with the value port directions and multiplicity of value exchanges? Because the old editor allows basically anything
Let's put this on standby and discuss it when I am back.
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Bob Rubbens notifications@github.com wrote:
The port behaviour enforced in the editor was revised since this issue was posted. It's not the same as the original editor but it's (somewhat) close. Afaik we want to reproduce the previous editor's behaviour as good as possible, right? How should we proceed with the value port directions and multiplicity of value exchanges? Because the old editor allows basically anything
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/danionita/e3tools/issues/52#issuecomment-241201158, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKjEpIaPBoTr0VJf98fO7RtKUmnt6Ladks5qhwXLgaJpZM4JmXhH .
When connecting the interface of a composite actor to the interface of one of its sub-actors, the port checking semantics have to be reversed: in ports can only be connected to in ports and out ports only to out ports.