From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-01 15:00:16
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > But how can I specify the "transition action", if not by overriding the "transit" method?
> As I said, if you need some non-trivial (i.e. something more complex
> than a mere call to switch_to), you have to implement the transit
> handler. Otherwise, you don't have to do that and you get precisely what
> the TMP solution provides.
Your answers confirm my initial statement: "The modeling of the "transition" concept could and should probably be improved."
Also, your statement "you get precisely what the TMP solution provides" is misleading. It's easiest for me to explain this with an example from graph theory. A graph can be described by an "adjacency list", but it can also be described by an "incidence list". The state-based approach of the FSM library corresponds to the description of a graph by the "adjacency list". The transition-based approach of the TMP solution corresponds to the "incidence list". The description by an "adjacency list" will often be more efficient than the description by an "incidence list", but the "incidence list" makes it easy to associate additional information to the edges of the graph. You basically claim that you also support the "incidence list" approach, but you don't provide support for associating additional information to the edges of the graph, because you consider this "too complex".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk