----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Huber" <ah2003@[...].net> 
To: <boost@[...].org> 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: [prereview request][fsm]

[...]

> 
>  Yes, you can do that if you want (it is a per state machine policy). The
>  default is to always dispatch an exception_thrown event.
> 

Interesting solution!
catch
{
	try { throw; }
	catch( type1 ) { ... }
}

never thought about it. This is why I didn't know
how to make it generic. It makes sense now.


>  See http://tinyurl.com/2bjjw, Unstable state machine
> 
>  > It sounds kind of disturbing to me when
>  > a generic state machine framework defines
>  > some sort of unstable states on its own.
> 
>  I don't think so, the behavior is clearly defined and just automates what
>  you'd do manually anyway.


As for unstable states.
Does this idiom mean that any exception event handling
state must be considered as an implicit *inner* state of
any other state that throws?
So that *only* the exception handling states
can be considered as *most inner* states.

I think that one of the most important goals of
the state machines design is to achieve
a completely deterministic behavior.
Doesn't your default exception handling
idiom compromise this objective?
However as soon as you can customize
or disable the default exception handling.
I am fine with that.

Eugene

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