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

From: David Cattarin (ditto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-10 09:01:40

Hi Dave

David Abrahams wrote:

>"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
>  
>
>[snip]
>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.
>  
>

I've only had a cursory glance at Spirit, but I have a hard time seeing 
how I could adapt it for non-parsing uses, such as message handling 
where messages are filtered. In fact, I think there is a strong division 
between event generation and state transitioning. In other words, the 
state machine framework should be independent of how events are generated.

Would you agree?
Dave