Re: [boost] Review request: Boost.FSM

From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-10 17:21:22

Hello Peter,

Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 10:58:32 PM, you wrote:

> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> Hello Peter,
>>
>> Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 12:02:17 AM, you wrote:
>>
>>> You should also consider not extending the critical sections beyond
>>> the minimum necessary, as in
>>
>>> locking_state_machine& operator= (locking_state_machine const& that)
>>> {
>>>     scoped_lock that_lock( that.m_Mutex );
>>>     base_type tmp( that );
>>>     that_lock.unlock();
>>
>>>     scoped_lock this_lock( m_Mutex );
>>>     tmp.swap( *this );
>>>     this_lock.unlock();
>>
>>>     return *this;
>>> }
>>
>> I thought about something like this and decided not to do it. The
>> implementation has no support for "swap" and it would not be an easy
>> and convenient for users thing to implement it. Besides, the
>> assignment creates an additional copy of the machine which is at least
>> not intuitive for users and may considerably increase performance
>> cost.

> Yes, after looking at your submission, I now realize that base_type is
> basically a tuple of states (this could be a good use case for fusion). As a
> side note, speaking of performance, if you want to position your library as
> faster than Statechart, you probably need to back that up with specific
> measurements. These can go in the Performance section. 

Ok, I've put that in my to-do list.

-- 
Best regards,
 Andrey                            mailto:andysem_at_[hidden]