Subject: Re: [boost] Two FSM libraries, one interface
From: OvermindDL1 (overminddl1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-07 12:38:25
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Christophe Henry
> Hi David,
>>Anyway, I just got tired of being a grumpy old passive man, so decided to put some of my money
>>(or time) where my mouth is. I will write more about this side effect of my analysis in a blog post later
> I find it great and worth of respect that you spent time making a
> useful contribution to the discussion by going the extra mile (or even
> 2-3) to present your point.
> While I am by no mean a friend of the preprocessor, I find your
> solution interesting and encourage you to push it a bit further by
> supporting at least guards.
> If you allow a few comments:
> - I suggest you to give the action a name because you won't always
> manage to name an action actState1EventState2, for example with 2
> transitions with the same source and target.
> - this would also remove the need for direct code writing, which could
> break the preprocessor
> - What about adding some entry/exit? I'm sure you manage to pack this one too.
> Otherwise I find the idea surprising but fun and think that it could
> gain being pushed a bit further. If you do, you could even tempt me to
> reuse it in an eUML front-end ;-)
Out of curiosity, but since MSM is designed to have configurable
front-ends and back-ends, why cannot statemachine become a new
back-end and/or front-end to MSM? MSM supports everything
statemachine does so it should be possible with perhaps minor syntax
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk