Re: [boost] Re: [prereview request][fsm]

From: E. Gladyshev (eegg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-27 14:25:37

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Huber" <ah2003_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: [prereview request][fsm]

[...]

>
> Yes, you can do that if you want (it is a per state machine policy). The
> default is to always dispatch an exception_thrown event.
>

Interesting solution!
catch
{
        try { throw; }
        catch( type1 ) { ... }
}

never thought about it. This is why I didn't know
how to make it generic. It makes sense now.

> See http://tinyurl.com/2bjjw, Unstable state machine
>
> > It sounds kind of disturbing to me when
> > a generic state machine framework defines
> > some sort of unstable states on its own.
>
> I don't think so, the behavior is clearly defined and just automates what
> you'd do manually anyway.

As for unstable states.
Does this idiom mean that any exception event handling
state must be considered as an implicit *inner* state of
any other state that throws?
So that *only* the exception handling states
can be considered as *most inner* states.

I think that one of the most important goals of
the state machines design is to achieve
a completely deterministic behavior.
Doesn't your default exception handling
idiom compromise this objective?
However as soon as you can customize
or disable the default exception handling.
I am fine with that.

Eugene