From: Alexander Nasonov (alnsn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-18 16:46:01
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> Thanks for the article. It dropped me a thought of a way of improving my
> automatic transitions support in runtime.
You're welcome! What idea, BTW?
> Although, I still don't catch the point of creating/destroying state
> objects during transitions. This can even be inconvenient if a state
> is intended to be visited more than once.
It's easy to draw a graph by analyzing signatures of transitions. It's
not possible with switch_to<State>() because these calls can appear
anywhere in the on_process body. This is very important use case, IMO.
You can always define a state with a pointer to the state's data. This
is usually a good distinction especially if states hierarchy is used
to model inner and outer states. In this case, states hierarchy in often
not related to state's data hierarchy.
-- Alexander Nasonov http://nasonov.blogspot.com Knowledge is knowing that we cannot know. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson -- This quote is generated by: /usr/pkg/bin/curl -L http://tinyurl.com/veusy \ | sed -e 's/^document\.write(.//' -e 's/.);$/ --/' \ -e 's/<[^>]*>//g' -e 's/^More quotes from //' \ | fmt | tee ~/.signature-quote
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk