RE: [boost] Re: FSM Review

From: Iain Hanson (Iain.Hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-15 08:26:31

On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 12:06 +0000, Paul A Bristow wrote:
>  
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> | [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David B. Held
> | Sent: 15 March 2005 00:13
> | To: boost_at_[hidden]
> | Subject: [boost] Re: FSM Review
> 
> | It will be a sad day when Boost rejects a good library because
> | another library in a different part of the design space is
> | theoretically faster.
> 
> IMO this hits the nail on the head.
> 
> As with too many reviews, there have been very interesting,
> but essentially speculative, alternative ideas,
> produced not during the 'proposed library' development phase,
> but somewhat destructively and at the 'last minute'.
> 
Sorry, but check the archives before "speculating" on when comments have
been made. I argued for state charts to be implemented in terms of STT
at the pre-review in May 2004.

> These should not be a reason for rejection,
> but should spur development of different
> (and hopefully in some ways better) ideas to submit in future.
> 
Rejection is not permanent. If a library has flaws and they are
substantial enough then it should be rejected so that when changed, it
can be reviewed again.

I would like to see a state chart lib in boost but not as it currently
stands. I would not mind if it was accepted as *beta* which would tell
users that it has caveats.

/ikh