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!
>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 :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk