Subject: [boost] [msm] guard behavior if guard guards the transition MSM threats event as handled is that correct?
Date: 2011-11-24 21:52:06
Regarding our compile-time problem in the past and therefore, the changes
Would it be also feasible to develop an additional backend that is derived
from the MSM one, but only implements the process_event() method for each
event and not in a generic template-based way?
With this approach we could still use MSM out-of-box and not having the
need for internal transition tables or having references from inner to
outer state machines etc but still gain small compiler units.
I understand that we will loose flexibility and creating new state
machines becomes more work, but I think we could live with that.
What is your opinion? Am I thinking too short?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk