"Andreas Huber" <ah2003@[...].net>  writes:

>  David Abrahams wrote:
> >> I'm reading it like a bible only when it helps to argue my case ;-).
> >
> > I know there's a smiley, but you're not doing your credibility any
> > favors with that statement.  It makes me wonder how many other
> > decisions in the design have such a flimsy foundation.
> 
>  I think a foundation for a decision is not flimsy when the behavior
>  in question has proved to be useful in practice. So far nobody, who
>  seems to have experience with non-trivial FSMs, has doubted that it
>  is useful to terminate a state machine when it is destructed (my
>  assumption A1).  

I don't doubt that it's often useful.  I also think it is surely
sometimes highly undesirable.  If you remove A1, the "useful" behavior
is trivial to achieve without transforming the FSM, so it seems that a
design without A1 is both more flexible and more orthogonal.

>  BTW, as pointed out by someone else the user *does*
>  have a choice. If she happens to have an exit action that she'd
>  rather not have executed upon destruction then she can always
>  transform the machine part in question such that her action is
>  executed as part of a transition action instead (I would consider it
>  a design error not to do so).

Why?

>  Every Moore machine (an FSM that has only entry and exit actions)
>  can be transformed to a Mealy machine (an FSM that has only
>  transition actions) and vice versa.

Why require a transformation when it's not neccessary?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com

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