[boost] Re: FSM Review

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: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com