[boost] Re: FSM Review

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-13 04:28:15

Matthew Vogt <mattvogt_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> The serialization library is a beautiful example of how a rejection
>> ended up being very positive for the library and for Boost.  Whether
>> or not that experience can be replicated is another question.  It was
>> certainly not easy for Robert.
>> 
>
> If my hazy recollections are right, the initial serialization library review 
> brought up various criticisms of the library, which had been solved by other 
> libraries, or for which useful techniques were known and could be applied.
>
> This library seems to differ - it appears that there are criticisms
> of the library's performance characteristics, but no-one is pointing
> to alternative libraries that solve these problems (albeit they may
> be deficient in other ways).  Similarly, I haven't noticed any
> suggestions for specific techniques that might be used to improve
> the performance of the current submission.

To the contrary, in previous threads I have posted several examples of
small FSM libraries with either O(1) or O(#outgoing transitions)
dispatch.  Alexander Nasonov has also posted some examples using a
very different approach.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com