From: Andreas Huber (ah2003_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-27 07:09:35
Johan Nilsson <johan.nilsson <at> esrange.ssc.se> writes:
> Isn't good understandability in the public interfaces what libraries are all
> about (well, perhaps not _all_, but you get my point)?
Yes, but adding entry()/exit() is non-trivial and complicates the interface. I
don't think this is justified when one can explain it in 10 seconds.
> > Remember, even if we had entry() and exit(), we would still
> > need state objects that are created on entry and destructed on exit. This
> > crucial to satisfy the scalability requirements.
> I got the impression otherwere in this thread that destruction on exit was
> unrelated to 'scalability', does that not hold?
You're right, sorry for the confusion. Scalability is retained, even if state
objects are constructed long before entry and destroyed long after exit.
Important is only that every FSM object has its own state objects.
> > > As I haven't been following your discussion with Dave; is this also a
> > > performance concern (function call overhead)?
> > Yes, I think so. I currently don't see any way how entry()/exit() could be
> > implemented without causing overhead for people not using them, although I
> > vaguely recall that Dave once hinted in this direction.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk