[boost] Re: FSM Review

From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-08 12:41:39

Alexander Nasonov <alnsn <at> yandex.ru> writes:
> > Why is it a problem to remember that?
> 
> It's not a problem to remember one or two things but it's hard
> to remember more without a logic underneath.

Most people familiar with hierarchical FSMs (UML ones anyway) don't have a 
problem seeing the logic. Also, I don't see what I should explain more than I 
do already.

> I suggest at least using smart indentation in tutorial
> for better visual impression.

I can do that.

> > >2 forward declaration of events
> > 
> > You mean states? That shouldn't be too hard either?
> 
> This confusion proves my words :)

It may prove your words in your case, I don't think it proves anything how 
well other people can learn the syntax. See comments/reviews from people who 
have actually used the library.

> > >I think some of them should be defined somewhere else.
> > Where?
> 
> Template arguments are not only the place to play in.
> For example, you may use nested typedef for transition
> table like in MPL FSM example.

True. Then again, I don't see much of a difference usability-wise between:

struct MyState : fsm::simple_state<
  MyState, Machine, mpl::list< /* ... */ > > {};

struct MyState : fsm::simple_state< MyState, Machine >
{
  typedef mpl::list< /* ... */ > reactions;
};

Regards,

-- 
Andreas Huber
When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap
from the address shown in the header.