Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-18 13:00:57

Hello Pavel,

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at