Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-01 16:58:17

Hi Andreas,

> It doesn't, but this seems to be beside the point anyway. You wrote (in an
> unquoted part) that Msms behavior with respect to storage in states is hard
> to emulate with SC. Simon only showed that it isn't (unless Simon and I are
> missing something).

But (as you wrote yourself in this excellent rationale) if you have to
move the data from state to fsm you lose part of the benefit of
state-storage, right?
OTOH you get the advantage of automatic destruction. Even better would
be to allow both possibilities through a policy.

For every design decision taken in Msm, you will probably find a case
where SC will offer a better solution in some cases and vice versa. At
first glance, it seems that state storage is the same in both
libraries, but as it turns out, there are subtle differences.

> That's good to hear. BTW, is there only a limit on the number of
> transitions, or is the number of states limited in some way to? Does the
> number or orthogonal regions have an influence?

I never managed to break a compiler purely on the number of states (I
tried up to 80).
The orthogonal regions have very little influence as their
metaprogramming needs are very small.



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