[boost] Re: FSM Review

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 ;-)

Understandably :-).

[snip]
>>> 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.

Regards,

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