Andreas Huber wrote:
>  F2. The UML standard defines that all currently active states are left when
>  a state machine is terminated. I do not quote the text here as in the UML
>  standard this is not a single definition but consists of what a final state
>  is (2.12.2.5) and how states are exited when a transition is made
>  (2.12.4.6). What is called "terminating the state machine" in this post (and
>  in the boost::fsm documentation) is called "making a transition to the final
>  state" in UML.

[and snip]

>  A1. When a state machine object is destructed, the modeled state machine
>  must also be terminated (i.e. the destructor of the state machine
>  unconditionally terminates the state machine before returning to the
>  client). Actually, the UML standard in one place (2.12.4.4) hints in this
>  direction but it is far from clear whether this assumption is covered by the
>  UML standard (and could thus be put in the hard facts section).

F2 defines termination as "making a transition to the final state". It's 
far from clear that destroying a state machine should make a transition 
to the final state. Specifically, if the machine is in a state which has 
no transition to the final state, what does it mean to terminate the 
machine? If the machine is in such a state when it is destroyed, does it 
make sense to pretend it can transition to the final state when no such 
transition exists?

I would think that when a state machine object is destroyed, no actions 
(exit or otherwise) should be executed; rather, it should just tear down 
the state machine and release its resources (state objects, transitions, 
whatever). What am I missing?

Bob

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