Robert Bell wrote:
>  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?

You can see this as another assumption related to A1...

>  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?

You're not missing anything. If you disagree with the assumptions I make
then I will not be able to convince you. The only hope I have is that you
will see that my assumptions do make sense *in practice*.

Regards,

Andreas


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