Re: [boost] Re: Finite state machine requirements

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 15:09:50

At 09:48 AM 9/6/2002, David Cattarin wrote:

 > In my approach, I've almost entirely discarded
 >inheritance from the framework. The only derivable classes are Action
 >and Guard. There are a lot of reasons, but based on my experience, I
 >have come to feel that state machines *and* state are just containers.
 >
 >Now, I'm new to boost, but I have been learning about template
 >metaprograming for the past year. I have taken a quick look at the BGL
 >and think that it is a good mechanism for defining state machines. As
 >for States, I think it is just a class that holds entry Actions, body
 >Actions, and exit Actions. This allows me to reuse Actions in other
 >States will very little work. My Actions, are just functors.

I found the above fascinating. Would it be too much to ask you to expand on 
it a bit?  Particularly how the BGL is used to define a state machine, and 
what a state container looks like.

Thanks,

--Beman