From: Andreas Huber (ah2003_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-24 09:44:02
John Fuller <jfuller <at> wernervas.com> writes:
> I don't know if this is helpful, but in my state machine
> implementations I move to the next state on success and on failure
> remain in the same state and throw an exception event
> event at that state, users are expected to configure the machine
> to handle exceptions at each state to transition into error handling
> behavior or ignore the error, or whatever.
> Events are propagated recursively beginning at the most granular state,
> so that
> parent state changes are only succeed when substate changes succeed.
boost::fsm does exactly that and AFAICT Dave and I don't disagree on this
behavior. What we disagree on is whether there should be a guarantee that exit
actions are called under all circumstances or not.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk