Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-20 16:18:39
>> You brought 2 reasons for this impossibility:
>> 1. Automatic entry/exit. You answer that "With separate FSMs you'd
>> have to manage this yourself".
>> 2. Automatic event dispatch. You answer that "Again, with separate
>> FSMs you'd have to do that yourself (dispatch to first FSM and if that
>> didn't consume the event, dispatch to second FSM and so on)."
> It appears that you should read the 2005 post a lot more carefully,
> especially the quoted context. The remarks you quote above have *nothing* to
> do with the impossibility I claimed.
No, I won't spend "a lot more" time trying to decipher the supposedly
hidden meaning of your post and invest the time more wisely by making
MSM more useful.
The link I added seems quite clear to me and anyone interested can
make himself his own opinion by opening it.
You did not bother bringing an argumentation disproving my claim, so I
will simply keep it.
As you also didn't address the more important technical part (multiple
TU) of my answer, I will consider it accepted.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk