Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] FSM Second Call for Reviews
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-04 19:31:10

on Thu Sep 04 2008, "Thomas Klimpel" <> wrote:

> I don't think that the difference is the use case, but the representation in
> source code. I guess one possible representation of a finite state machine (one
> with a finite number of stateless states) is the list of transitions with the
> corresponding actions. (Let's forget about C++ for a moment. Let's simply
> imagine a text file with this list, and some tools to process this list in order
> to perform certain tasks, like optimizing the finite state machine, or verifying
> some important properties of the finite state machine.) Some people seem to
> think that this is a particularly clear representation of the corresponding
> machine. I'm no expert in this domain, so I can't say whether this judgment is
> justified. But my evaluation lead me to the conclusion that the "transition"
> feature of the fsm library is ill suited for a direct translation of this
> representation into source code.

For what it's worth, when I write an STT, I always group the transitions
by source state, so the representation is ultimately not all that
different than the state-based representation used by the proposed
library. I think the main difference is in the ability to read the
structure of the machine without too much interference from other code.

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at