Subject: [boost] [msm] eUML guard/action location
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-07 04:37:01
>What do you think about this instead?
>CurrentState() + cool_event()[Guard()]/(action()) = DestState()
>I think it more closely matches the UML syntax.
It's a good idea and it surely matches the UML syntax better. I think
the operator precedence will also work. There are however 2 issues:
- the current order "CurrentState() + cool_event() = DestState()
[Guard()]/(action())" has been chosen to closely match the "normal"
row syntax. Only guard and action have been inverted because of
- anonymous events. In this case, you have no event, so your syntax
CurrentState() [Guard()]/(action()) = DestState()
But now the guard/action are "attached" to the source state, which
means 2 grammars to support with the corresponding flow of compiler
risks and compile-time increases.
The first issue is only my worry that users would be confused (eUML
already being quite a change). I'd be interested to hear from others
The second issue is not so big that it's not worth a try.
I think I'll have a look at it and if it works we can then decide
which one we prefer.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk