[boost] Re: FSM review

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-12 15:44:37

Andreas Huber wrote:
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:

I forgot to respond to part of your message.

>> What I would like to see in the rationale is a
>> comparison of a small handful (2-5) of alternate implementation
>> technique, either approaches taken by other libraries or approaches
>> you tried yourself early in development, together with an explanation
>> of why they fail to satisfy the requirements.
>
> That's interesting. I was under the impression that exactly such a
> list of alternate implementation techniques would not satisfy you,
> because it would in no way show that the design I chose is the best
> performance-wise.

Why not? That would be the main point.

> And performance was your biggest concern, wasn't it?

Yes.

Jonathan