Re: [review] FSM Second Call for Reviews

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > But how can I specify the "transition action", if not by overriding the "transit" method?
>
> As I said, if you need some non-trivial (i.e. something more complex
> than a mere call to switch_to), you have to implement the transit
> handler. Otherwise, you don't have to do that and you get precisely what
> the TMP solution provides. 

Your answers confirm my initial statement: "The modeling of the "transition" concept could and should
probably be improved."

Also, your statement "you get precisely what the TMP solution provides" is misleading. It's easiest for me
to explain this with an example from graph theory. A graph can be described by an "adjacency list", but it
can also be described by an "incidence list". The state-based approach of the FSM library corresponds to
the description of a graph by the "adjacency list". The transition-based approach of the TMP solution
corresponds to the "incidence list". The description by an "adjacency list" will often be more efficient
than the description by an "incidence list", but the "incidence list" makes it easy to associate
additional information to the edges of the graph. You basically claim that you also support the
"incidence list" approach, but you don't provide support for associating additional information to the
edges of the graph, because you consider this "too complex".

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost