David Abrahams wrote:
> > 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.

I'd be interested in examples.

>  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.

Removing A1 means complicating the interface (see my other post regarding
exit()).

> > 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?

Because I very much believe that such a transformation is necessary only in
very few cases (I've never encountered one) and I don't want to complicate
the interface and potentially also pessimize the implementation for all
users just because of those few cases.

Regards,

Andreas


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