[boost] Re: Re: Re: FSM Review

From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-11 18:30:14

Dave Gomboc wrote:
>> However, since each innermost state must know all its outer
>> states (1),
>> it is theoretically possible to collapse all the reactions of
> these
>> states into a STT that is local for each innermost state. At a
> rather
>> hefty price, this would give you constant-time lookup,
>> *separately* for
>> each innermost state. In FSMs with orthogonal regions multiple
> such
>> innermost states can be active at the same time, which makes
> lookup
>> linear again. Hence my previous remark to Dave.
> 
> 1. And a state-superset transition table is not possible for
> compiler capability reasons?

You lost me. What is a state-superset?

> 2. You know, the NFA -> DFA conversion process is _exactly_ the
> process that one would use to take the state-supersets and flatten
> them out.
> Win:  constant-time dispatch.
> Lose: scalability.

Err, yes? I'm not sure how this is relevant.

Regards,

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