RE: [boost] Re: Finite state machine requirements

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-05 18:35:34

> I guess the party is not going to happen here anyway, unless you'd call two
> people (you and me) a party ;-).

Well, others that are just lurking now that may pop in later :-)  I 
would love to see a nice FSM library -- I just don't have a need 
this second and I don't have enough time to review your proposal, 
but don't stop!
 
> The lack of interest for my proposal here at boost made me think more about
> your approach to FSMs. Maybe everyone thinks a boost FSM should be
> dynamically configurable? 

Not really.  One question though, have you looked at the FSM example
that is part of the MPL paper:
http://www.mywikinet.com/mpl/paper/mpl_paper.html

> Or maybe I just overestimated the utility of state
> machines in everyday programming (that's what boost libs are all about,
> aren't they)? 

They might be more useful if we had a good library :-)

Jeff