Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] guard behavior if guard guards the transition MSM threats event as handled is that correct?
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-28 16:35:15

> Hi Christophe,
> Regarding our compile-time problem in the past and therefore, the changes
> Richard made:
> 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?
> Thanks,
> Michael

Hi Michael,

I'm not sure I understand your request completely. It's feasible to write a
new backend (though it's a huge task because this is the whole engine of the
library) but IIUC, your solution is exactly what MSM is doing now. You get a
process_event for each event because the function is templated on the event
type and generates different code. These process_event functions actually
are what makes most of your compile-time.
The task is probably much bigger because what you ask for is probably a
completely new back-end.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at