Re: [boost] [msm] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-06 20:53:44

On Dec 6, 2009, at 8:33 PM, David Abrahams wrote:

> 
> On Dec 7, 2009, at 1:28 AM, David Bergman wrote:
> 
>>> 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 a suggestion, not a mandate: maybe we should consider whether this argument can actually lead anywhere useful.  I think there is agreement on the basic facts, and merely disagreement over characterization; no?

No, there is not agreement about facts. I think that almost all features are common between the two and that the way to use those features are quite similar, and very similar for non-guarded, non-nested cases. This is in disagreement with what Andreas, for one, believes: that the overlap is far from total. Since I seem to be a singleton minority in my view, I am wrong (statistically speaking...)

Why am I so anal about these matters this time, when complacently watching other proposals fly by - often in utter silence? Because - beside being a junkie for vertices and arrows in all shapes and forms - I think a second library solving the exact same problem as an existing one does require quite some scrutiny, and I also want to understand if this review comes down to mostly measuring differences in runtime characteristics.

I would like to use one common interface and then switch engine dependent on runtime needs, or compiler limitations. That is what I did in my embryo to a common predecessor, diagrammatically speaking, treated in a recent post of mine.

/David