[boost] Re: Finite state machine requirements

From: Gustavo Guerra (gustavobt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 17:43:24

"Andreas Huber" <spam2002_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:al8sq7$lpe$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> Gustavo,
>
> > I did a brief look at you proposal (pity it doesn't have docs), and OMHO
> it
> > still feels like we have to do much tedious work. And I also think the
> state
>
> There are docs now, which should be sufficient if you are familiar with
> state machines. What do you mean with too "much tedious work"
>

Oh, I hadn't found the docs yet. Much better now :-)
What I ment with "much tedious work" is related to the spread-out nature.
Lots of typing :)
I think an approach with a compile time transition table (a bit like the mpl
paper example) would be better, enabling us to more easily convert state
transition tables to code, especially for simple state machines. Even on
more complex ones, I think an interface like that could be made to work. The
clutter of many template parameters could be simplified with the help of
named template parameters.

Regards
Gustavo Guerra