Re: [boost] Re: Re: Finite state machine requirements

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-05 20:01:23

From: "Andreas Huber" <spam2002_at_[hidden]>

> 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.
>

You might look to the Spirit Parser Framework (http://spirit.sf.net) for
inspiration. The rules-vs-subrules distinction allows one to express
parsers that use both runtime and compile-time dispatching. Sounds like a
similar problem.

-Dave

-----------------------------------------------------------
           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com