Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Msm] On the necessity ofstate-boundary-crossingtransitions
From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamboostorgtrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-30 18:24:47
> I am not sure what is the point of such a challenge considering that I
> already explained that entry and exit pseudo states are not supported yet
> but will probably be in the future.
To me, it wasn't all that clear whether you are committed to provide such
states, but I guess I've misinterpreted things.
> Their absence is not by design as you
> seem to think but simply a decision of when to bring a version 1.0 and
> should be inside.
Excellent, that's good to hear!
> Anyway, as you offered me this challenge, I offer a solution which you
> find in the vault (
> I think this solution is a good example of what you can do with Msm and
> hopefully make it clear how sub machines can make life easier.
I guess we agree that, strictly speaking, the challenge remains unsolved
(your FSM has a different observable behavior). However, I do agree that
using orthogonal regions for the alarms is superior to Harel's original.
Anyway, I'll shut up now, as entry & exit points will definitely address my
current concerns :-).
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk