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
>> states into a STT that is local for each innermost state. At a
>> hefty price, this would give you constant-time lookup,
>> *separately* for
>> each innermost state. In FSMs with orthogonal regions multiple
>> innermost states can be active at the same time, which makes
>> 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.
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk