Johan Nilsson wrote:
>  This should really be more clearly stated in the docs - perhaps even
>  the wording 'scalability' should be changed.

Agreed.

>  You're referring to
>  minimizing compile-time dependencies, right?

Right.

>  The term "state local storage" feels a bit misleading to me - is that
>  a well-known term?

No, it isn't. I have coined that term. I hoped it is readily understood by
people proficient in the FSM domain.

>  I relate to thread local storage, which makes me
>  think that each state has some private storage accessible to only
>  itself (well ok,
>  maybe it has - 'this'). Is another wording possible?

Sure, do you have any suggestions?

>  If that is the case; would it be possible to address the question by
>  adding
>  a state_lifetime policy to e.g. the state_machine class?

It is certainly possible but I'm not convinced that such a policy solves a
real problem. See my other posts...

Regards,

Andreas


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