Boost Users :
From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-01 14:57:01
> It seems that the sequence of exit and entry actions invoked for a
> transition are modeled according to the UML 1.5 specification.
> other words it models "external" transitions from the 2.0 spec. Is it
It's certainly possible ...
> or are there any plans to extend it, to model the more
> useful local transitions from the 2.0 spec?
There weren't any plans until I read your post :-). It seems that any
local transition can always be converted to an external transition or an
in-state reaction. The only benefit I see is improved performance (one
state exit & entry less) under IME rare circumstances. So, the question
is: How often do you use such transitions?
> Tests with deep history produce a static assertion if you attempt to
> transition to history of a containing state. UML 2.0 explicitly
> permits this.
I disallowed such transitions because they don't seem to make sense and
there was no indication that they are allowed under UML 1.5. IIUC, such
a transition would simply leave & reenter the current state, right? If
so, what good is history for when the same effect can be achieved by
simply giving the state a normal transition to itself?
> Are there any plans to modify the library to permit
If there are compelling use cases I'd certainly add both features ASAP.
Thanks for the feedback!
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net