[boost] Re: FSM review

From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-20 10:54:39

Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> 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.

I don't understand. A list of alternate techniques would show that none
of these techniques satisfies the requirements but it doesn't say
anything why the current FSM implementation performs worse than any of
these techniques.

Regards,

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