From: Peter Petrov (ppetrov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-07 05:13:32
Dave Gomboc wrote:
> The distinction made between state and state_machine, which I
> consider to be unfortunate, was not justified in the rationale...
There is at least one good reason - the library supports both
synchronous and asynchronous state machines, which are essentially
different beasts and are operated quite differently. No such distinction
exists for states, therefore they shouldn't be treated the same way as
state machines. Otherwise you would be able to mix both synchronous and
asynchronous states in one machine, which doesn't make sense.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk