From: Andreas Huber (ah2003_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-27 17:50:19
Johan Nilsson wrote:
> This should really be more clearly stated in the docs - perhaps even
> the wording 'scalability' should be changed.
> You're referring to
> minimizing compile-time dependencies, right?
> The term "state local storage" feels a bit misleading to me - is that
> a well-known term?
No, it isn't. I have coined that term. I hoped it is readily understood by
people proficient in the FSM domain.
> I relate to thread local storage, which makes me
> think that each state has some private storage accessible to only
> itself (well ok,
> maybe it has - 'this'). Is another wording possible?
Sure, do you have any suggestions?
> If that is the case; would it be possible to address the question by
> a state_lifetime policy to e.g. the state_machine class?
It is certainly possible but I'm not convinced that such a policy solves a
real problem. See my other posts...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk