Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-07 17:24:03

Hi David,

>The problem is this: if, *hypothetically*, eUML were the only substantial difference between this proposal
>and what is already in Boost, I would argue for an implementation of that syntax on top of Statechart to be a more viable solution.


>As you spell out here - and I can confirm - that is not the only difference

Happy that we finally agree ;-)

>Perhaps, I would like to take on that challenge and see how far I can get.
>I think it would be great to have a common transition-definition format for these two libraries, and being able to switch in compile-time.
>Let me try to look at it a bit, and see what I can do. It would involve a lot of wrappers, unfortunately :-(

As I wrote in another post, I find the idea hard but interesting and I
can only encourage you to give it a try.

>I enjoy being critical of things I like, which is why I always criticize my wife.

I wouldn't try to push this too much with mine ;-)

>So, take that as a good sign for my formal review (which has already been pushed one day due to my "common interface" sickness :-) )

I'll be happy to read it. I think that, while this common interface
thing went a bit long, you brought interesting points to the review
and even went the extra mile to not criticize without bringing at
least a beginning of a solution, which is not a very common thing.


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