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:
>> > 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
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.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk