Re: [boost] Re: FSM Review

From: Iain K. Hanson (ikh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-07 20:31:39

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 06:03:15PM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
> "Andreas Huber" <ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 

[snip]

> >
> > That depends on the functionality. I don't think it is possible if you 
> > want to provide support for orthogonal regions.
> 
> Sorry, I don't really understand the concept.  How are they different
> from separate state machines?

AFAICT nothing. State charts are always collapseable to state transition
tables. For each state event pair you would need to allow for a pre-transition
action followed by a transition paramaterised by a guard ( condition) followed
be a post transition action. The common case does not need two actions and 
it tends to be fairly arbitary which you use ( more a matter of taste ).

The other item required is a context. The common case is a context per FSM.
The FSM submissionn allows for a contect per state. context is just a parameter
of state which could either common user defined class or a per state class.

If you can accomadate that then writting the DSL for state_charts should be 
fairly straight forward.

/ikh

>