David Abrahams wrote:
"Andreas Huber" <ahd6974-spamgroupstrap@yahoo.com> writes:
I did consider that and tried to explain why I failed. I'm afraid that I haven't been very successful in convincing people that the main obstacles aren't easy to overcome.
I think some of us are unsympathetic to the "it's hard" argument ;-)
Understandably :-). [snip]
But this library seems to have a design that's fundamentally incompatible with an approach like that. To get there, both the interface and the implementation would have to be redesigned IIUC. So that sums up why I think evolving toward support for lightweight FSMs is not likely.
See above, a few optimizations are theoretically possible but it is clear that the proposed FSM library will probably never earn itself the predicate lightweight.
I don't care if the library is lightweight (well I do a little). I'm talking about generating lightweight FSMs. But I suspect that's what you meant anyway. That would confirm my impression.
Yes, I meant the generated FSMs. Regards, -- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.