From: Kowalke Oliver (QD IT PA SI) (Oliver.Kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-06 02:13:03
> > Hi Martin.
> >> The formal review for Andrey Semashev's Finite State
> Machines (FSM)
> >> library is scheduled for August 11th to 20th.
> > What are the intended and actual differences from the already
> > accepted Statechart library?
> The main differences are simplicity and performance. The
> performance tests show difference by an order of magnitude,
> in the best case for Boost.Statechart. The overall design of
> Boost.FSM is geared more to compile-time code generation,
> while Boost.Statechart aims to support more scaled machines
> and therefore is geared towards run-time. There is a section
> in the docs that compares the libraries.
Is it correct that Boost.FSM can not defer an events (I didn't found a statement in the docs)?
That means in yout tutorial the state Processing consumes the event passed to template< typename T > void on_process(T const&)? If so - how Boost.FSM supports you if the order of passed events are not predictable?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk