From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-30 07:27:53
"Andreas Huber" <ah2003_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> I'm reading it like a bible only when it helps to argue my case ;-).
>> I know there's a smiley, but you're not doing your credibility any
>> favors with that statement. It makes me wonder how many other
>> decisions in the design have such a flimsy foundation.
> I think a foundation for a decision is not flimsy when the behavior
> in question has proved to be useful in practice. So far nobody, who
> seems to have experience with non-trivial FSMs, has doubted that it
> is useful to terminate a state machine when it is destructed (my
> assumption A1).
I don't doubt that it's often useful. I also think it is surely
sometimes highly undesirable. If you remove A1, the "useful" behavior
is trivial to achieve without transforming the FSM, so it seems that a
design without A1 is both more flexible and more orthogonal.
> BTW, as pointed out by someone else the user *does*
> have a choice. If she happens to have an exit action that she'd
> rather not have executed upon destruction then she can always
> transform the machine part in question such that her action is
> executed as part of a transition action instead (I would consider it
> a design error not to do so).
> Every Moore machine (an FSM that has only entry and exit actions)
> can be transformed to a Mealy machine (an FSM that has only
> transition actions) and vice versa.
Why require a transformation when it's not neccessary?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk