Gabriele Monaco <[email protected]> writes: > Do you have any other reason to prefer "state_d" in your example?
Because "state_d" is what my dot renderer displays, not "state_c". > Either way we are opening for confusion (like in your example), so if you > believe throwing an error makes the grammar simpler, we could also go down > that > path. I can simply add a check that the node's name matches the label. > In any case, I would make the label definition mandatory. So my current sample > model is wrong. Cool, so no work for me then. Nam
