Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] scalability
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-13 18:31:47
>> I think the trade-off is
>> likely to be not so much against run-time but UML features. I'm think
>> about transition conflicts. This one is pretty hard on the compiler.
>> I'd also bet on submachines and entry/exit pseudo states.
>The idea would be to do all parts that are hard on the compiler
>at runtime. I don't see why you should have to sacrifice features.
I understand the idea and also think it is possible.
I first need to analyze a bit more in detail which features cost the
most compile-time, but I imagine it will probably be quite a new
back-end, or do you already have an idea in mind? At first sight I'd
think that the underlying data structures will be quite different.
If we are talking about big changes, then I'd prefer to write a
completely new back-end for which I have a few ideas ;-)
But as it will be quite some development effort, I'd prefer to bring a
mini MSM first. It'll help for compile-time in many standard cases, be
there earlier and have better performance so we will need it anyway.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk