Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-03 17:54:42
On Dec 3, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> David Bergman wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Christophe Henry wrote:
>> I have two (harsh?) questions to this community:
>> 1. Is there a Boost library removal process, so that one can at least
>> mark a library as deprecated? The duality, sort of, to the acceptance
> There isn't - and there shouldn't be. Once one employs a library
> in a real program, he has to be sure that it's going to be around
> an indefinate amount of time. Otherwise, the maintainence
> of the application which uses it isn't under control of application
> developer anymore.
> One could suggest that there be a process of "recommendation"
> but that's going to be pretty subjective. I think this should
> be handled in a way that boost doesn't currently provide for.
>> 2. *If* (i) MSM were part of Boost before Statechart and (ii)
>> compilers could handle massive transition tables (in the order of a
>> few hundred transitions), would Statechart have been accepted?
> I don't think the answer to that question is relevant to anything.
To anything, really? In fact, a hypothetical positive answer to that question would indicate that MSM is as good or better*, ignoring compiler limitations. Come on, folks, let us face it: we are about to have two *very* similar FSM libraries here, so it should be fair to ask whether one is - feature-wise - better* than the other. No? We do not have this much overlap in any other library w.r.t. features and interface. We have the Spirit/Regex overlap, but that overlap is only partial, and Spirit handles more while Regex handles the intersection (arguably) in a simpler manner. Definitely simpler for developers not used to embedded DSLs in C++.
* - yes, I did use a subjective term
> Personally I don't see any problem in having more than one
> library address the same problem as long as they are different
> in some substantive way.
>>> I love C++ :)
> I'm sure we all do.
>> I am certain that C++ loves you back, Cristophe.
> I'm not so certain about this at least in my personal case.
We have had our problems over the years, with a lot of fights about proper anonymous object creation (and destruction) and some heated arguments about NVO.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk