Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] eUML guard/action location
From: Darryl Green (darryl.green_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-07 04:48:02
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 10:37 +0100, Christophe Henry wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> >What do you think about this instead?
> >CurrentState() + cool_event()[Guard()]/(action()) = DestState()
> >I think it more closely matches the UML syntax.
> 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
> about it.
I like this suggestion - but really - it is not a huge issue. I assumed
that the only reason guard was last in the transition table syntax was
because it was optional. I don't personally find it confusing if euml
picks a different order.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk