Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andreas Huber (spam2002_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-05 19:44:26


Jeff,

> 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

Yes, I had a look at the full source code which Aleksey was so kind to
provide. The approach has its limitations, as Aleksey pointed out:

> Interesting. I think that for small-to-medium FSMs a single STT is
> easier to maintain and understand (and probably check for
> completeness/correctness), as it keeps the FSM description "in one
> piece". However, your approach definitely makes sense to me as well,
> in particular because a single STT effectively limits the FSM size to
> something like 100-200 transitions (the compile times become
> inacceptable, or the compiler reaches its internal limits). If I were
> to design a full-fledged FSM framework, I would let both description
> methods co-exist.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3d3abf94%40news.s
wissonline.ch&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DA%2Bbetter%2BC%252B%252B%2Bstate%26h
l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3d3abf94%2540news.swissonline.ch%26rnum
%3D1

I tried to make the approaches coexist as Aleksey pointed out, but I have
yet to find a clean way to do this while supporting guards, hierarchical
states and concurrent states.

Regards,

Andreas


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk