Anonymous transactions in scenarios do share the scenario name

[Gaudeval]

It seems the following declaration does result in both the Scenario (outer) and Transaction (inner) sharing the same name. This seems to be causing issues for the interference analysis (and it does not raise a warning?)

val s = Scenario(Transaction(app read d), named_tr)

Both the Scenario and Transaction are named s.

[Gaudeval]

I think the issue here might be the lack of a warning.

[kevin-delmas]

The following code will not consider any scenario or transaction in the analysis.
The semantics will depend on the subsequent usage of used keyword.
In this specific example it is not possible to consider the anonymous transaction s since it is not possible to use the used keyword:

val s = Scenario(Transaction(app read d), named_tr)

// only the scenario is considered
s.used

But a more tricky case exploiting shadowing is:

val s = { 
val s = Transaction(app read d)
s.used
Scenario(s, named_tr)
}

// the scenario and the transaction are considered
s.used

[kevin-delmas]

I do agree that the checkLibrary method is not searching for a scenario and a transaction with the same name.
Nevertheless, I think this isssue should be solved by droping the notion of Scenario as suggested by issue #19
@Gaudeval what do you think?