This site is what I am working with at this time. Pages and links may be added at a later time. The info I have seen says that (1)A state-protocol-machine has as its context a "class", ... (2)There is an "Interface" class? ... and ... (3)1virtual,/ abstract - "functions","methods","operations", etc. are not instantiated by the containing class, but this requires that the class "using" these virtual-alities make them possible ...
These matters become moot when declared in the context of a LISP environment ...if properly defined the "machine protocol" could be instantiated in a slot-ted context-- whence UML's avoidance of the issues by --- 14.4.3.2.4 Using other types of Events in ProtocolStateMachines and, allowing that The precise semantic interpretation of this is not defined. according to an UML document description ...
the unveil continues ...
I would opt to believe on the evolving stages we're taking in this description of process, where there comes a point that we will concede the truth of the matter ...
Although LISP continues to amaze, the original provisioning was as a simple cacophony of (LED'ed)flip-flops, arranged on a 30degree angled plane. Where LISP continues to amaze is in deploying this implementation the 6B40 (o'clock) locations articulate the @"control" addresses that each flip-flop was to orchestrate ... maybe it(@) could be displaced, but the RED, GREEN, YELLOW, BLUE XOR'ed requirements of each and every location dictates some other kind of discrimation needs to be declared ...
... as this is the modis-operandi that this site's intonations, with its little boxes on clocks, is trying to purposely lisp into the world's reality... it would certainly have a better reception if at least it portray an actual 12 hour view... geesh ...
... and then we try to LET the readers comprehend that the [ @C_control ] Sequences that this concept goes through is in the image to the left... while the ground swells below at (6@C,B@C,$@C,O@C) would/could be creating a fractal-ish looking hodgepodge of multi-dimensional statutory photonic quanta ... ... ...
… quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur … if the below was able to be seen as the lowest form of expression that the process could be described in {as far as the author is concerned, it is} … then the only way to go is to build up layers of forms from these duck-typed s-expression where simple named functions glue the intentions wit the transformations mentioned … quid pro quo
This may be visible somewhere on this site, but as of today a XuppduX_PSM model of a LET_PSM with the wanted AB_PSM connections showing the Port's wires entering the LET's, and LED's vertexes [which were modeled via a Libre drawing] have not been found... this is an indication of further modeling requirements ... yeee haaa ...
=========================================================
Continuing with the bottom up posts; the figure <ASTATE de LETLED6 moi ici> should indicate some type of morph(s) in UML's protocol-state-machine models where-in the decisions<Diamond-Shapes> do not intend to decide which path into it intuitively is chosen as a source for the output transistion. Whereby the modeler's choice for choosing which path to take shall be left up to a join or a fork object. Although, (what was I saying), the <ASTATE de LETLED6 moi ici> image is a Libre Drawing, with the aforementioned wiring port-harnesses named in its original state, named and orchestrated(where UML wants named objects), those naming properties were not uploaded with/to this diagram.
LET's hope this site does not seek to ascend into anaphoric-despair here