Re: [boost] [msm] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-14 09:56:14

Hi David, Hi Darryl,

>It is simply great EXCEPT for lack of instructions on how to actually leverage the design decision
>to separate front and back end fully, i.e., helping me to define my OWN front end or back end for MSM.
>So, I must take the design claim of separability with a tiny grain of salt.

I didn't dream that someone would really ask me this :)
Ok then I'll document this part. The interface between front- and
back-end is pretty simple. Should you need any extension of it, please
let me know, I'm very interested in your idea.

> Yes, yes, yes!

thanks :)

>The name Meta State Machine is misleading. An FSM acting on other FSMs?
>Or, to add the C++ modern (and in my view quite improper...) semantics of 'meta': an FSM being executed in compile-time? Nah.

Short before the 1.0, there was only one class, state_machine (now the
backend). So, like a metalanguage, which is a language used to build
other languages, MSM was a state_machine to build state machines.
Granted, afterwards, the pun looks less funny ;-)

>I agree - how about ffsm - fast finite state machine - or should that be
>frightfully fast state machine :-)

Sounds cool :)