Re: [boost] [fsm review] Comparison with ad-hoc FSM coding

From: Christian Holmquist (c.holmquist_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-17 01:00:35

However, nothing stops me from simply
> calling the set_address method which will result in either a Default or
> Configured state.

> He intentionally described that as undefined behavior.

Sorry for breaking in, I'm no expert on state machines at all but.. isn't
the goal of expressing a FSM by the aid of the proposed to library to
minimize the chance of undefined behaviour? If the OP's state machine
doesn't guarantee its valid state, why is that a useful reference to compare
against in the first place?

If I don't care what happens when I run my program (leaving bigger parts of
it as undefined behaviour), there's is little need for me to use any boost
library at all =)

Cheers,
/ Christian