[boost] Re: Re: FSM Review

From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-08 16:57:37

Rob Stewart wrote:
>> struct MyState : fsm::simple_state<
>>   MyState, Machine, mpl::list< /* ... */ > > {};
>>
>> struct MyState : fsm::simple_state< MyState, Machine >
>> {
>>   typedef mpl::list< /* ... */ > reactions;
>> };
>
> I think the latter is far easier to grok since the
> fsm::simple_state parameter list is shorter and simpler.  The
> same information must be supplied either way, but the second form
> separates distinct aspects of defining the state, so one can
> ignore some details when concentrating on others.

You do have a point there. Plus, if I'm not mistaken then this would 
also remove a small glitch I have recently discussed with Darryl Green.

> Whether the latter form creates problems elsewhere, I don't know.

I haven't checked yet but I think it shouldn't.

Regards,

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