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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-09 13:34:29

"Andreas Huber" <spam2002_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:aliop5$crp$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> Dave,
>
> I haven't had a look at Spirit because I think the following
argumentation
> is independent of implementation techniques. I agree that the current
> approach spreads the state machine logic more than necessary. However,
> partitioning the state code into .hpp and .cpp files and introducing a
new
> base class boost::fsm::transition clears things up considerably:

<snip>

> Thoughts?

Make all the argumentation you want; I won't (have time to) understand it
any better than I do now ;-)

It's worth noting that compile-time and runtime techniques can be used
together in the same system with a reasonably smooth interaction between
them. Spirit lets you choose at which level you are going to have
runtime-dispatched transitions. I don't know whether that applies to your
problem domain or not. Using the BGL (or similar) to represent FSMs leaves
you entirely in the runtime domain, where transition dispathcing is
concerned.

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