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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-17 15:15:58

on Sun Aug 17 2008, "Phil Endecott" <spam_from_boost_dev-AT-chezphil.org> wrote:

>> Well, your code is not an FSM. I mean, the usb_device behavior does not
>> in any way depend on its state. I could simply remove the state variable
>> and have the same result.
>
> If I had realised sooner how degenerate that particular example was
> going to turn out I would have chosen something else.  But I realised
> too late, and I thought it was better to use a real application than a
> contrived one.  I will try to come up with another example before the
> end of the review period so that we can discuss the real problem and
> not be sidetracked by this.

If you had only implemented the entire state diagram as shown, you would
have transitions depending on state (see the transitions that occur due
to bus activity).

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com