6 Aug 19:03
Re: FSM Review Announcement
Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev <at> gmail.com>
2008-08-06 17:03:27 GMT
2008-08-06 17:03:27 GMT
Chris Knight wrote: > On Wednesday 06 August 2008 9:59:43 am Andrey Semashev wrote: >> I'm not sure what you mean by that "registering". The library does one >> event dispatching if it is known at compile time that no entry in the >> transition map will be triggered. If a transition map entry is >> triggered, then two dispatches are done - one to deliver event to the >> transition handler, and second to deliver the event to the active state. >> In any case, dispatching is very efficient and is basically a call on a >> function pointer that is acquired from an array by index. > > I was referring to deferred event dispatching. I see on another thread that > Boost.FSM does not support such a concept. I was simply noting that any > such implementation can/should be done without the use of rtti/virtuals. I don't see the connection between rtti/virtuals and event deferring. Anyway, in case of Boost.FSM virtual functions are only used for enter state handlers in case of run-time version of state switching. Type info is used for convenience only - it provides default state names and diagnostic information in case of exceptions. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RSS Feed