On Tuesday, October 08, 2013 11:19:19 AM Claude Warren wrote:
> Seems unintuitive to me but I'll just document it that way.
>
> I think that it should not add the new statement to the model unless the
> old statement was in the model.
Well, perhaps. But what we've got has a definite defined beh
Seems unintuitive to me but I'll just document it that way.
I think that it should not add the new statement to the model unless the
old statement was in the model. Off the top of my head I can't think of a
good reason why a developer would want to do this but I don't like that
except for the dif
On Tuesday, October 08, 2013 09:56:26 AM Claude Warren wrote:
> So just to be clear.
>
> If a Statment S has the conditions:
> S.getModel() = M
> M.contains(S) = F
>
> and we call
> S2 = S.changeLiteralObject( o2 );
>
> we expect:
>
> S2.getModel() = M
> M.contains(S2) = T
Yes.
> So changing
So just to be clear.
If a Statment S has the conditions:
S.getModel() = M
M.contains(S) = F
and we call
S2 = S.changeLiteralObject( o2 );
we expect:
S2.getModel() = M
M.contains(S2) = T
So changing the object of a statement has the side effect of putting the
new statement in the model even if
On Tuesday, October 08, 2013 09:34:04 AM Ian Dickinson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Chris Dollin
> wrote:
> > On Monday, October 07, 2013 07:44:43 PM Claude Warren wrote:
> >> Assume a Model M containing one Statement S composed of s,p,o.
> >> Assume M has a listener L
> >> Assume a St
On Tuesday, October 08, 2013 09:17:55 AM Claude Warren wrote:
> Strangely enough there is a bug if this is correct.
I messed up my previous response, sorry.
Doing a S.change[Literal]Object(O) should remove S from its model and
insert the new S'.
> Assume a Model M containing one Statement S comp
