Re: [boost] [msm] Nested submachines and explicit state entry

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Nested submachines and explicit state entry
From: Richard Szabo (sz.richard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-08 13:05:54

Hi Christophe

I have made an example which implements the UML state chart provided by Michael.

well it does not compiles with VC9 :(.

it compiles as fare as the explicit entry target state is a simple
state but does not if it is a composite sate (e.g.: a sub state
machine).

The example compiles and runs if you uncomment:
sm.process_event(test_fsm::event1());

please find in attachment the examle cpp and the compiler output.

Br.
Richie

On 8 June 2010 12:58, Christophe Henry
<christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>>As already stated in the documentation it is possible to have explicit
>>state entry into another submachine within a state machine.
>>
>>Is there a possibility to have a state machine, which has another
>>submachine with explicit state entry and that submachine has another
>>submachine with an initial transition.
>>I put that together in a picture and attached it. I hope then it gets
>>clearer what I want to do.
>>The picture shows just a simplified version of the overall state machine
>>and I discarded some other states, transitions and orthogonal regions.
>
> Starts becoming an interesting case ;-)
> Yes it should work. I tested with the same depth-level without any
> problem. What is not supported yet would be if your explicit entry was
> going into a substate of a submachine of a submachine, meaning you can
> only "cross" one submachine boundary. So your example is ok.
>
>>How do I have to declare the transition table and states in that case?
>
> A transition table is always declared inside a state machine, after
> the states have been declared. In my examples I always declare states
> inside the front-end but it is only for readability. In your case, you
> could declare the SM1 front-end, then inside its declaration add the
> one for RunningStateMachine, then inside RunningStateMachine the one
> for Inner1 and Inner2. After Inner1 and Inner2, the table for
> RunningStateMachine, then the table for SM1. something like:
>
> struct SM1_...
> {
>   struct RunningStateMachine_...
>   {
>       struct Inner1_...;
>       typedef msm::back::state_machine<Inner1_> Inner1;
>       ...
>       // add RunningStateMachine table
>   };
>   typedef msm::back::state_machine<RunningStateMachine_> RunningStateMachine;
>   // add SM1 table
> };
> typedef msm::back::state_machine<SM1_> SM1;
>
>>Are there any restrictions regarding nested depth?
>
> Not in the library. I see just 2:
> - your patience while compiling
> - your compiler. At some point, it will probably get pissed off ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Christophe
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>