Re: [boost] [MSM] Is there any interest in C++14 Boost.MSM-eUML like library which compiles up to 60x quicker whilst being a slightly faster too?

Subject: Re: [boost] [MSM] Is there any interest in C++14 Boost.MSM-eUML like library which compiles up to 60x quicker whilst being a slightly faster too?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-06 17:57:47

Le 06/02/2016 22:07, Krzysztof Jusiak a écrit :
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
> vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Le 05/02/2016 22:30, Krzysztof Jusiak a écrit :
>>
> Thanks for materials and ideas. It's a really intresesting idea with the
> pseudo states. I'm not sure if it is not to complex for msm-lite, but I
> will defo take a look.
> Your approach also gave me and idea to add exception handling into the
> transition table the way events are handled too. Not sure about such
> approach, but I guess, it's worth to consider too.
>
> src + event [guard]/action = dst // guard throws runtime_error
> src + exception<runtime_error> = X // handle exception
Yes, this is the idea.
> Anyway, I have created a ticket for it here ->
> http://boost-experimental.github.io/msm-lite/TODO/index.html
>
>
>>    Suggestions are more
>>> than welcome as I'm not sure what would be the best solution here.
>>>
>>> Can you elaborate what you mean by `inheritance of state machines`,
>>> please?
>>> Is the question related to composite/sub state machines or just whether a
>>> state machine might be inherited?
>>>
>> A derived state machine can refine a base state machine in different ways:
>>
>> 1* adding new transitions
>> 2* refining a state by adding sub-states and transitions
>> 3* refining the next state of a transition with a sub-state of the derived
>> next state (or an entry point, but I believe that MSM-lite has no
>> entry/exit points associated to an state, isn't it?)
>>
> Not yet, explicit entry/exit points are not supported yet.
>
>
>> 4* refining the guard of a transition
>> 5* refining the action of a transition
>>
>> I'm for at least the 3 first extension mechanisms. The last two can be
>> emulated with virtual functions.
>> Point 3* could be not needed if the base class transitions make use of
>> entry points.
>>
>>
> Okay, well, msm-lite doesn't support that as a feature. However, you can
> achieve more or less all of mentioned things just by using C++.
> For example, you can extend transiton table of a state machine by joining
> it with another one.
>
> auto table1 = make_transition_table(transitions...);
> auto table2 = make_transition_table(table1, other_transitions...);
>
This should respond to point 1*. 2* should need to replace the refined 
state in table1.
Point 3 would covered if the make_transition_table function overrides 
the redefined transitions.

It would be great if you show how the user can address these points with 
your library using some run-able concrete examples.

Vicente