Subject: Re: [boost] Two FSM libraries, one interface
From: OvermindDL1 (overminddl1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-07 12:38:25
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Christophe Henry
<christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>>Anyway, I just got tired of being a grumpy old passive man, so decided to put some of my money
>>(or time) where my mouth is. I will write more about this side effect of my analysis in a blog post later
>
> I find it great and worth of respect that you spent time making a
> useful contribution to the discussion by going the extra mile (or even
> 2-3) to present your point.
> While I am by no mean a friend of the preprocessor, I find your
> solution interesting and encourage you to push it a bit further by
> supporting at least guards.
> If you allow a few comments:
> - I suggest you to give the action a name because you won't always
> manage to name an action actState1EventState2, for example with 2
> transitions with the same source and target.
> - this would also remove the need for direct code writing, which could
> break the preprocessor
> - What about adding some entry/exit? I'm sure you manage to pack this one too.
>
> Otherwise I find the idea surprising but fun and think that it could
> gain being pushed a bit further. If you do, you could even tempt me to
> reuse it in an eUML front-end ;-)
Out of curiosity, but since MSM is designed to have configurable
front-ends and back-ends, why cannot statemachine become a new
back-end and/or front-end to MSM? MSM supports everything
statemachine does so it should be possible with perhaps minor syntax
changes...