The existence of two auto transitions should raise an error

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The following code has two auto transitions. This is not possible. Also event e 
will never trigger a transition because the auto transition takes precedence 
(only a guarded auto transition co-exist with an event transition.

The possibility of such combinations in superstates and substates needs to be 
considered too.

This case is very similar to issue 485, recently fixed

class X {
  sm {
    s1 {
      -> s2;
      -> s3;
       e -> s3;
    }
    s2 {}
    s3 {}
  }
}

Original issue reported on code.google.com by TimothyCLethbridge on 2 Mar 2014 at 3:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I just saw this issue and would like to note that my fix for issue 485 does not 
handle situations with auto transitions. I will fix this ASAP.

Original comment by erictel...@gmail.com on 4 Mar 2014 at 1:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

making sure it is marked for Eric, so some other student doesn't disrupt Eric's 
work

Original comment by TimothyCLethbridge on 1 May 2014 at 1:54

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by TimothyCLethbridge on 27 Jun 2014 at 6:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by PedroAug...@gmail.com on 16 Jul 2014 at 3:08

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The example above now raises error 54 because of two kinds of transition, but 
if we take out e -> s3; it should raise a warning about two auto transitions.

Original comment by TimothyCLethbridge on 5 Aug 2014 at 7:01

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by CraigBry...@gmail.com on 9 Feb 2015 at 2:28

• Changed state: Fixed