Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Msm] On the necessity ofstate-boundary-crossingtransitions
From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamboostorgtrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-30 18:24:47
Hi Christophe
> I am not sure what is the point of such a challenge considering that I
> already explained that entry and exit pseudo states are not supported yet
> but will probably be in the future.
To me, it wasn't all that clear whether you are committed to provide such
states, but I guess I've misinterpreted things.
> Their absence is not by design as you
> seem to think but simply a decision of when to bring a version 1.0 and
> what
> should be inside.
Excellent, that's good to hear!
> Anyway, as you offered me this challenge, I offer a solution which you
> will
> find in the vault (
> http://www.boostpro.com/vault/index.php?direction=0&order=&directory=Msm&).
> I think this solution is a good example of what you can do with Msm and
> will
> hopefully make it clear how sub machines can make life easier.
I guess we agree that, strictly speaking, the challenge remains unsolved
(your FSM has a different observable behavior). However, I do agree that
using orthogonal regions for the alarms is superior to Harel's original.
Anyway, I'll shut up now, as entry & exit points will definitely address my
current concerns :-).
Kudos,
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.