From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-18 13:00:57
Sunday, December 17, 2006, 11:28:26 PM, you wrote:
> "Andrey Semashev" wrote:
> [ snip differences between Boost.Statechart and the proposed FSM ]
>> That being said, I may only purpose my implementation as a lightweight
>> addition to the Boost.Statechart aimed to solve performance and simplicity
>> issues for small and light FSMs. Is there any need in such?
> The Statechart library is named as is not to give impression
> that this is the only possible FSM implementation in Boost.
So, is that a "yes" answer?
> An interesting idea had bubbled up during the review
> - a FSM that could be "hidden" within a class and would simplify
> internals of the class.
> Something like that was described on:
> but this implementation is IMHO too complicated
> for the end user.
Actually, the case in the article is quite common in my practice - I
have an interface or a class that I'd rather implement as FSM. That's
why I added a simplified events support based on tuples. Though, I
couldn't find any automatic way to translate interface method calls
into events except by hand or with a code generator.
-- Best regards, Andrey mailto:andysem_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk