# Isn’t frame conditions quite fragile? **URL:** \ **Category:** Questions\ **Created:** [July 18, 2023, 9:17am UTC](https://alloytools.discourse.group/t/isn-t-frame-conditions-quite-fragile/376 "2023-07-18T09:17:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 2
**Author:** ![peter.kriens](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/alloytools.discourse.group/peter.kriens/32/3_2.png) [@peter.kriens](https://alloytools.discourse.group/u/peter.kriens)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2023, 12:16pm UTC](https://alloytools.discourse.group/t/isn-t-frame-conditions-quite-fragile/376/2 "2023-07-18T12:16:43Z")
I agree … it is criminally error prone. I once made a PlusCal like interpreter in the Alloy code base. There I analyzed the branches (implies) and made sure to add instructions when one branch set a var that was not set in the other branch. This seemed to work well but I have no idea how theoretically solid it was and nobody got excited … so it has been lingering since. From a user point of view I think it would be really a huge gain. > [@PlusCal in Alloy](https://alloytools.discourse.group/t/pluscal-in-alloy/59): > > I’ve been playing with Alloy (Electrum version) and added a ‘[PlusCal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlusCal)’ like feature to Alloy. I finally got the basics to work and I am looking for some expert feedback. I know PlusCal is for us, the deplorable developer class, because it gives the impression of procedural code. However, that might actually convince some other developers to take a look. Many concurrent problems become a lot easier. However, so often in this world I find that my intuition is totally off so some feedback about this… --- _[View the full topic](https://alloytools.discourse.group/t/isn-t-frame-conditions-quite-fragile/376)._