[boost] Re: FSM Review

From: Alexander Nasonov (alnsn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-06 19:26:06

Andreas Huber wrote:
> I don't think so. Even with Aleksey's approach, with an FSM becoming
> sufficiently large at some stage the compiler will give up because it
> reached its template nesting depth limit or compilation becomes
> infeasible because it takes too long (usually because the compiler eats
> up so much memory that there's a lot of swapping).

I agree with you. Your library is much more scalable.

> Why is it a problem to remember that?

It's not a problem to remember one or two things but it's hard
to remember more without a logic underneath.
I suggest at least using smart indentation in tutorial
for better visual impression.

Actually, I never tried to remember state interface although
I read your tutorial two or three times. I decided to postpone
it till I really need to write my first state machine.

> >2 forward declaration of events
> 
> You mean states? That shouldn't be too hard either?

This confusion proves my words :)

> >I think some of them should be defined somewhere else.
> Where?

Template arguments are not only the place to play in.
For example, you may use nested typedef for transition
table like in MPL FSM example.
-- 
Alexander Nasonov