Ok to answer my own question from the docs
Please note that this rule is *not transitive*:
Actor A sends message M1 to actor C
Actor A then sends message M2 to actor B
Actor B forwards message M2 to actor C
Actor C may receive M1 and M2 in any order
Causal transitive ordering would imply that
No. For one, actor A may have a bunch of messages in its mailbox while
actor B has none, meaning A will have to process all those before
processing 'x' but B will process 'y' immediately.
On Friday, December 20, 2013 9:08:34 AM UTC-7, Tim Pigden wrote:
>
> Hi in the following
>
> a ! x
> b ! y
