Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-07 17:24:03
>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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk