Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-06 16:39:51

On Dec 6, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Michael Caisse wrote:

> David Bergman wrote:
>>> I mean there's no headroom here like "For my use cases ..." or "To me ...". In absence of such qualifiers the reader must assume that you think that from a purely functional POV the two libraries are exchangeable for *all* possible uses. Add your remarks regarding library removal and the reader must IMO come to the conclusion that you think *all* users will be better served with MSM once compilers catch up. For sure, MSM *does* look terrific and may well satisfy a good majority of FSM implementers but there are certain use cases (e.g. multi-TU FSMs) that MSM will probably never support. OTOH, Statechart will e.g. never be able to guarantee O(1) dispatch.
>>> So yes, there *is* overlap but it is certainly far from total, right?
>> Not far from, no. If you bring up one feature, multi-TU FSM, I would not call that "far". The overlap is 95%. No?
>> Just look at the feature list of your own library, Statechart, as described in the Overview section. Which one of those features does *not* apply to MSM?
>> /David
> Just to be clear David... A couple people have now brought up that the actual implementation
> (not the feature set) is very much a differentiator for different targets. You continue to
> point at "features". Do you not think that the implementation of a library is a consideration
> for different targets?

Yes, of course, which I have stated in various posts of mine.

I *know* that the implementations differ, but that was not what we were discussing here, was it? We are discussing whether the feature sets and interfaces are far apart or not.


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