Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-07 21:24:12

"Iain K. Hanson" <ikh_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

This has something to do with STTs and State Charts? I'm lost.
Nothing else you say here helps clarify the concept of orthogonal
regions for me.

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at