From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-18 23:27:52
I thought I'd clarify a couple of points below.
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:55:30 -0500, Andrey Semashev
> My implementation has similarities to player2.cpp, however, there are
> significant advantages in Boost.FSM.
> - The library does not take addresses of user's functions, which allows
> to use templates and simplifies overloading.
> - States are not an enum values but classes that may have a common
> virtual base, which allows to have state-specific and shared data in the
Enum- vs. class-based states *per se* is a relatively minor aspect of
the MPL's FSM example. You can have it either way . In fact, earlier
version of the example does use (non-polymorphic) classes to represent
Our derivative version here at work allows for state-specific data.
> The events are processed in states.
This one, however, is IMHO the biggest difference between the approaches.
> - States support enter and leave handlers.
Along with other niceties such as state invariants, this comes for free
once you decide to go with the class-based states (the version we use at
work has these as well).
> There is also a reset method that allows to clear the states and
> silently transit to the initial state.
 Obviously, class-based states have a higher runtime overhead.
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk