From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-13 09:45:57
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Andreas Huber" <ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I did consider that and tried to explain why I failed. I'm afraid
>> that I haven't been very successful in convincing people that the
>> main obstacles aren't easy to overcome.
> I think some of us are unsympathetic to the "it's hard" argument ;-)
>>> But this library seems to have a design that's fundamentally
>>> incompatible with an approach like that. To get there, both the
>>> interface and the implementation would have to be redesigned IIUC.
>>> So that sums up why I think evolving toward support for lightweight
>>> FSMs is not likely.
>> See above, a few optimizations are theoretically possible but it is
>> clear that the proposed FSM library will probably never earn itself
>> the predicate lightweight.
> I don't care if the library is lightweight (well I do a little). I'm
> talking about generating lightweight FSMs. But I suspect that's what
> you meant anyway. That would confirm my impression.
Yes, I meant the generated FSMs.
-- 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