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 13:12:48

Now I try to attach files with out zipping.

On 8 June 2010 19:05, Richard Szabo <sz.richard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
>>
>