Re: [boost] Re: Finite state machine requirements

From: David Cattarin (ditto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 15:36:18

Hi Beman,

I'd be happy to oblige. I'll go into more detail this weekend when I 
have a bit more time.

In any case, I'd like to learn a bit more about the BGL. I'm finding the 
BGL fascinating. In a way, I wish boost was around when I started 
working on my "generics" implementation. It might have saved me a lot of 
trouble.

Dave

Beman Dawes wrote:

> 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
>