Paraphrase complicated negated sentence

[phannebohm]

No description provided.

[phannebohm]

Conceptually, should this also extend to chains of more than two operator records like C->D->E->C?
(-> represents a constructor, so the described scenario is C->D->C)

[henrikt-ma]

Looks good to me. Just leaving a minor comment.

[henrikt-ma]

Conceptually, should this also extend to chains of more than two operator records like C->D->E->C?
(-> represents a constructor, so the described scenario is C->D->C)

This looks like a good question to ask in a new issue.

[HansOlsson]

Since you are a new contributor we also want a signed Contributor's License Agreement, CLA (or being part of an organization having signed the CLA on your behalf). @GallLeo

Added - you can find it at: https://www.modelica.org/licenses/ModelicaAssociationCLA_1.1/view

[HansOlsson]

Conceptually, should this also extend to chains of more than two operator records like C->D->E->C?
(-> represents a constructor, so the described scenario is C->D->C)

I don't see how that could occur. Constructors do not allow implicit calls of multiple constructors, and for the operators they are at most binary so we only have two arguments.

[HansOlsson]

Change looks good, but we need the CLA issue clarified.

[phannebohm]

Change looks good, but we need the CLA issue clarified.

No problem, except how do I sign? 😅
I'm with the university of applied sciences in Bielefeld, they may have signed it.

[HansOlsson]

Change looks good, but we need the CLA issue clarified.

No problem, except how do I sign? 😅
I'm with the university of applied sciences in Bielefeld, they may have signed it.

I understand you have to sign https://www.modelica.org/licenses/ModelicaAssociationCLA_1.1/view and send it in some way
@GallLeo can you handle this?

[GallLeo]

I checked and FH Bielefeld has not signed the MA CLA, so far.

Please hand in a signed scan to backoffice@modelica.org and on paper to
MA Backoffice
c/o LTX Simulation GmbH
Wohlfartstr. 21b
80939 München

In schedule B, please list the employees, which should be covered by the CLA (best by name, email address and Github User Name).
After we do have this signed version, the "point of contact" can simply add or remove employees by sending informal e-mail (this will update schedule B).

[eshmoylova]

Should probably also update the sentence on lines 164-166:

Without mixed operations expressions such as
c+d are only ambiguous if both conversion from C to D and back from D to
C are both available...

"both" used twice

[HansOlsson]

I checked and FH Bielefeld has not signed the MA CLA, so far.

Please hand in a signed scan to backoffice@modelica.org and on paper to
MA Backoffice
c/o LTX Simulation GmbH
Wohlfartstr. 21b
80939 München

In schedule B, please list the employees, which should be covered by the CLA (best by name, email address and Github User Name).
After we do have this signed version, the "point of contact" can simply add or remove employees by sending informal e-mail (this will update schedule B).

Any update w.r.t. CLA?
@GallLeo @phannebohm

[MABackoffice]

Any update w.r.t. CLA? @GallLeo @phannebohm

Did check: no CLA received at Backoffice, yet.
I sent a reminder to Bernhard, just now.

Please note, that the link above to CLA document is broken after server move of modelica.org :/
Link to current MA CLA: https://github.com/modelica/ModelicaAssociationCLA/releases

[HansOlsson]

Still no CLA from Bielefeld as far I know. Reminder sent July 14th.

[HansOlsson]

Without CLA we cannot accept it.

[phannebohm]

The HSBI (former FH Bielefeld) managed to sign the CLA finally. It should have arrived at the Backoffice or be there shortly. Can you reopen this PR or should I open a new one?

[HansOlsson]

Have finally gotten CLA.