On Mon, 2026-05-04 at 10:44 +0200, Nam Cao wrote: > 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". >
Right, in that case it gets more confusing.. Then I see no reason to allow a different label, let's just count it as error. > > 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. Yeah, that'd do, keeping in mind the label after a \n can be different (HA invariants). The invariant parsing should then make sure nothing else appears after the \n . Thanks, Gabriele > > > 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
