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

From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-18 05:57:34

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> I've attached another
> version of the example with a transition map (see
> usb_fsm_transition_based.cpp). Note that all transition logic is
> encapsulated in transitions and all processing is in states.

I'm unable to see how the "transition map" enters into the code. You
make a typedef 

typedef mpl::vector<
...
>::type Transitions;

but I cannot see "Transitions" used anywhere in the code. Is there some
magic that the included headers use this typedef? That would be scary to
me.