David Abrahams wrote:
> > Yes, but only at the cost of making the current interface (and
> > implementation) more complex (we'd need to have at least a separate
> > exit() function, right?).
> 
>  No.  At the moment we're just talking about whether A1 is justified.
>  Whether or not exit actions should use destructors is a separate
>  question.

Is it? In the current design the state machine object owns the state objects
(it does so for good reasons). How can you destruct the state
machine object without destructing the state objects (and thus inevitably
also exiting them and terminating the state machine as a result)?

Regards,

Andreas


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